From: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> To: Matthijs Kooijman <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Duy Nguyen <email@example.com>, Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stefan Beller <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible. Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:14:04 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20130530082322.GW25742@login.drsnuggles.stderr.nl> (Matthijs Kooijman's message of "Thu, 30 May 2013 10:23:22 +0200") Matthijs Kooijman <email@example.com> writes: >> Doing it "correctly" (in the shorter term) would involve: > > Given below suggestion, I take it you don't like what Jonathan proposed > (changing the meaning of the deepen parameter in the protocol so that > the server effectively decides how to interpret --depth)? Correct. > We can implement these two in current git already, since they only > add to the protocol, not break it in an incompatible manner, right? Correct. >> - teaching the requestor that got --depth=N from the end user to >> pay attention to the new capability in such a way that: >> >> - when talking to an old sender (i.e. without the off-by-one >> fix), send N-1 for N greater than 1. Punt on N==1; >> >> - when talking to a fixed sender, ask to enable the capability, >> and send N as is (including N==1). > And these should wait for git2, since they change the meaning of the > --depth parameter? Or is this change ok for current git as well? My suggestion was based on the understanding that everybody agreed that the current behaviour of --depth=1 to have one extra commit behind the shallow "snapshot" aka "poor-man's tarball", is a *bug* to be fixed, so I didn't mean it as a "backward incompatible change" at all. > What do you mean by "punt" exactly? As old senders can only send a history with 2 or more commits deep, it would be sensible for the receiver to warn the user that we are buggily asking for one more than the user asked for to the sender, and fetch history with two commits. It would be a regression to error it out. >> In the longer term, I think we should introduce a better deepening >> mechanism. Cf. > Even when there will be a better deepening mechanism, the above is still > useful (passing --depth=1 serves to get just a single commit without > history, which is a distinct usecase from deepening the history of an > existing shallow repository). Correct. That is why I said "in the longer term, we should introduce". Did I say "introduce and replace with it"?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-02 19:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-01-07 18:06 Stefan Beller 2013-01-07 18:06 ` [PATCH] Documentation on depth option in git clone Stefan Beller 2013-01-08 6:28 ` [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible Jonathan Nieder 2013-01-08 6:54 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-01-08 7:36 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-01-08 8:19 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-01-08 14:28 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-01-08 14:32 ` Stefan Beller 2013-01-08 14:45 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-01-08 17:24 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-01-08 7:38 ` Duy Nguyen 2013-01-08 8:05 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-05-28 9:18 ` Matthijs Kooijman 2013-05-28 16:28 ` Jonathan Nieder 2013-05-28 16:31 ` Jonathan Nieder 2013-05-28 16:34 ` Matthijs Kooijman 2013-05-28 16:58 ` Jonathan Nieder 2013-05-28 17:04 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-05-30 8:23 ` Matthijs Kooijman 2013-06-02 19:14 ` Junio C Hamano [this message] 2013-07-09 13:35 ` Matthijs Kooijman 2013-07-11 10:57 ` Matthijs Kooijman 2013-07-11 11:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] upload-pack: Remove a piece of dead code Matthijs Kooijman 2013-07-11 11:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] upload-pack: Introduce new "fixed-off-by-one-depth" server feature Matthijs Kooijman 2013-07-11 11:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] fetch-pack: Request fixed-off-by-one-depth when available Matthijs Kooijman 2013-07-11 12:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] upload-pack: Remove a piece of dead code Duy Nguyen 2013-07-11 15:49 ` Junio C Hamano 2013-01-08 7:33 ` [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible Duy Nguyen 2013-01-08 7:37 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] git clone depth of 0 not possible.' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).