From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:58:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1mCXvcfUQxY4uMEPEjZp8+yPwu6SgTmZBEH6GR=8ixSA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200322095137.GB635598@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 10:51 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 05:28:05PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > This was something discussed briefly at the contributor summit: users will
> > have a hard time remembering git clone --filter=blob:none <url>. This series
> > simply adds a --partial option that is equivalent to --filter=blob:none,
> > with the ability to specify a size using --partial=<size> that is equivalent
> > to --filter=blob:limit=<size>.
>
> I have mixed feelings on this. I do like making things less arcane for
> users. But are we locking in a behavior for --partial that we might not
> want to live with forever? I.e., the current thinking for partial clones
> is to fetch no blobs at all, get all commits and trees, apply sparse
> filters, and then fault in the blobs we need. But imagine we later grow
> the ability to easily avoid fetching all of the trees. Would we regret
> having the simple name "--partial" taken?

I agree with that. Something like "--filter-blobs" for
"--filter=blob:none" and perhaps "--filter-blobs=<size>" for
"--filter=blob:limit=<size>" might be worth it though.