Re: "git fetch --refetch" and multiple (separate/orphan) branches

From: Robert Coup <robert@coup.net.nz>
Date: Jun 3, 2023, 08:18 UTC
Message-ID: <CACf-nVfUotaTYeCC9XMvnYYNhjX+EW89z7fhUX0Ok9TpsVTRTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPMMpoiJ4cNcAR9gO5d-749N3YW-88p1gMnX8ySGgz84Mr9coA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tao

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 22:23, Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> What I believe is happening is that *if* there are refs to be updated
> (or new refs, presumably), *then* the objects returned to the client
> are only those required for those refs. If, on the other hand, there
> are no updated refs, then you get what is advertised in the doc: "all
> objects as a fresh clone would [...]".
>
> I've tested a couple of different scenarios and the behavior seems
> consistent with this explanation.

Do you have a repo & steps that could reproduce this easily? Otherwise I can try and work up something.

> Is this a bug, or expected behavior that should be noted in the doc,
> or do we consider the multiple-independent-branches usecase to be
> edge-casey enough to be an easter egg for people like me?

At first glance it appears to be a bug.

Thanks,

Rob :)