Re: Sparse clones (Was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] upload-pack: support subtree packing)
- From
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 28, 2010, 03:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTikvhi-Bm-eV9ZfjoZdugRpiCwg8n-TQ4oOVvC=G@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTikJhSVJw2hXkp0j6XA+k-J-AtSYzKWumjnqqsgz@mail.gmail.com>
2010/7/28 Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>:
Show 7 quoted lines
> 1) A user controls sparseness by passing rev-list arguments to clone. > > This allows a user to control sparseness both in terms of span of > content (files/directories) and depth of history. It can also be used > to limit to a subset of refs (cloning just one or two branches instead > of all branches and tags). For example, > $ git clone ssh://repo.git dst -- Documentation/
Does pathspec is supported to in addition to prefix?
Show 12 quoted lines
> $ git clone ssh://repo.git dst master~6..master > $ git clone ssh://repo.git dst -3 > (Note that the destination argument becomes mandatory for those doing > a sparse clone in order to disambiguate it from rev-list options.) > > This method also means users don't need much training to learn how to > use sparse clones -- they just use syntax they've already learned with > log, and clone will pass this info on to upload-pack. > > There is a slight question as to whether users should have to specify > "--all HEAD" with all sparse clones or whether it should be assumed > when no other refs are listed.
So you basically kill off shallow clone too, with "master~6..master". I wonder what happens if user does "git clone ... master~6..master~3"?
Show 15 quoted lines
> 4) All revision-walking operations automatically use these limiting args. > > This should be a simple code change, and would enable rev-list, log, > etc. to avoid missing blobs/trees and thus enable them to work with > sparse clones. fsck would take a bit more work, since it doesn't use > the setup_revisions() and revision.h walking machinery, but shouldn't > be too bad (I hope). > > There are also performance ramifications: There should be no > measurable performance overhead for non-sparse clones (something that > might be a problem with a different implementation that did > does-this-exist check each time it references a blob). It should also > be a significant performance boost for those using it, as operations > will only need to deal with the subset of the repository they specify > (faster downloads, stats, logs, etc.)
Revision walking is not the only gate to access objects. Others like diff machinery needs also be taught about rev-list limits.
Show 9 quoted lines
> 5) "Densifying" a sparse clone can be done > > One can fetch a new pack and replace the limiting rev-list args with > the new choice. The sparse checkout information needs to be updated > too. > > (So users probably would want to densify a sparse clone with "pull" > rather than "fetch", as manually updating sparse checkouts may be a > bit of a hassle.)
What information would you send to the server to request new pack in sparse clone? Currently we send all commit tips. rev-list has a notion to subtract commit trees. I don't know if it can "add" or "subtract" tree prefix though.
-- Duy