From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 17:10:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: add config to avoid fetching every branch in shallow repo
Message-ID: <CALnO6CA5b7mpia9tkiOENdOKcOHF4errc31wuF5n5-=rrbHxVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbj9nagt2.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 3:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>     $ git fetch second main:refs/remotes/second/main
> >
> > I've wanted something similar for notes, so allow me to interject from
> > the sidelines: it would be even nicer to still have the ability to map
> > fetches (so that "git fetch second main" did the right thing, creating
>
> The thing is, the command line
>
>     $ git fetch second main
>
> has been used for the past 20 years as a "single-shot fetch" syntax
> that expresses that the user does not intend to keep interacting
> with the same 'main' branch or even the same 'second' repository,
> and for the "single-shot fetch", it is absolutely the wrong thing to
> create a remote-tracking branch.

Yes, perhaps I was a bit cavalier about that particular case; but in
your other message you suggested allowing configurable refmaps, and
that's what I was getting at previously without having the vocabulary
for it. Thanks!

> It would be even worse if we created a remote 'second' and
> remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/second/main' when you ran
>
>     $ git fetch https://ho.st/second main
>
> Having said that, I suspect that the fact that you have the
> shorthand 'second' (i.e., you have "[remote "second"] url = ..."
> defined) may be a good enough sign that you expect to keep
> interacting with that repository, and some people might appreciate
> it if
>
>     $ git fetch second main
>
> created a remote-tracking branch "refs/remotes/second/main"
> automatically.
>
> But we cannot suddenly start doing so without breaking people's
> expectations, and without a good transition plan.  We need at least
> an escape hatch for users to say "No, this is a single-shot fetch;
> do not write the object anywhere other than FETCH_HEAD as we have
> always done".

So anyway, I think fetch.<remote>.refmap is the right thing here, thanks!

-- 
D. Ben Knoble