Re: Is it possible to git clone --filter= without any objects?
- From
Ciro Santilli <ciro.santilli@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 11, 2018, 18:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAFXrp_emK=k7by5pM5=GpsixJVeeJhT89-Cgq3JYbn5yg14CpQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqo9d4orji.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:47 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes: > > > By "without any objects" in your email subject, do you mean "without > > blob and tree objects"? If yes, there is some code in the > > md/filter-trees branch that can do that with a "--filter=tree:0" > > option. > > I too was wondering what the "without any objects" thing meant > myself. >
Thanks for all replies, as you correctly deduced, I meant "without fetching any objects".
The mentioned --filter=tree:0 would basically do what I want it seems, good to hear!. I wonder why not call it tree:none though to match blob:none.
Show 7 quoted lines
> What would it take on top of the following sequence to create such > an ultra-lazy clone? > > $ mkdir very-sparse && cd very-sparse > $ git init > $ git remote add origin $URL >
Yes, this would be a good CLI API since the since the clone --no-checkout --filter --filter gets a bit long.
Or maybe:
git clone --lazy URL repo_local cd repo_local git checkout commit -- path/within/repo
Or maybe even:
git clene --lazy URL repo_local COMMITISH path/within/repo
to do both in one go.
People are also interested in commit-less directory / file "clones" BTW: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2466735/how-to-checkout-only-one-file-from-git-repository-sparse-checkout
Show 8 quoted lines
> At this point, the repository does not have any object, but it > already knows whom to talk to to get the objects in the project. > The remote must be configured so that it is willing to feed you any > object you name, but would it be just some "git config" magic after > the above three steps to make it as if it was prepared with "git > clone --filter="? If so, what does that magic look like? > > Thanks.