From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FA71F670 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 19:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242107AbiCGTlZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 14:41:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42600 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231883AbiCGTlY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2022 14:41:24 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF392AC67 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:40:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6726012D31B; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 14:40:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=mPmPnLNZGafgx5JHdiHfxIKz35OgheIQjqeyzV Bnqdw=; b=O7tJXfR/HoJ9jOrBisQ3HCOk86+dPUAddH7JWXKAahD4v7eT0/x3nx UEQo8EyfW6E2l/FUsbXzEIaOrO9ZX8W0BeR8pW6vBmBMKHZySEBLb0nd3zHXbFWf iHozcDRr8KDzwVbE6Le/XwlRogS0gkVvYGEy0/NJ/7iPq5fISOqdc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5FE12D31A; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 14:40:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.230.65.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9A5512D318; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 14:40:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, stolee@gmail.com, avarab@gmail.com, zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com, jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] bundle: unbundle promisor packs References: <85d434f8-0eb1-c6f7-dfd4-99bffbfbba57@github.com> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 11:40:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <85d434f8-0eb1-c6f7-dfd4-99bffbfbba57@github.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Mon, 7 Mar 2022 13:57:57 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 70B58786-9E4E-11EC-BA37-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: > I also had some struggles getting this to work since local clones > were actually ignoring the filter. I didn't think it was worth > setting up an HTTP or SSH server just for this test. Does "clone --no-local $path" work as a workaround? It should do the same thing as "ssh" codepath except that it uses "sh" instead as the process on the other side is running locally. >>> I also attempted doing a "git clone --bare partial.bdl unbundled.git" to >>> get the 'git clone' command to actually place the refs. However, 'git clone' >>> does not set up the repository filter based on the bundle, so it reports >>> missing blobs (even though there is no checkout). >> >> Understandable, as cloning from a bundle, if I recall correctly, was >> done as yet another special case in "git clone", differently from >> the main "over the network" code path. And from end-user's point of >> view, I think updating it is part of introducing the filtered >> bundle. > > The reason I did not include that here is because of the lack of > repository-global promisor/filter config. I do want to loop back > and make those updates, but perhaps for this series we should add > an error condition into 'git clone' to say "Cannot currently clone > from a filtered bundle" to help users understand the issue? It would be a workable stepwise solution, I would think. It is not like we are robbing an existing feature from users---it merely is that the support of partial cloning over different "transport" is uneven, which is to be expected, especially in earlier phase of introducing a new feature. Thanks.