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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A5820248 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731912AbfCZPS2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:18:28 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:36572 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1731774AbfCZPS2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:18:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 14730 invoked by uid 109); 26 Mar 2019 15:18:27 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:18:27 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 19896 invoked by uid 111); 26 Mar 2019 15:18:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:18:51 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:18:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:18:25 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Jonathan Tan , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fetch-pack: respect --no-update-shallow in v2 Message-ID: <20190326151825.GA26167@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190326052011.GB1933@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:14:11PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > That seems like the best we can do without the protocol change. And even > > if we adjust the protocol, we need some fallback behavior for existing > > v2 servers, so this is worth doing. > > Are people actually doing this (i.e. cloning from or pushing to a > shallow repo)? I added this with the intention that a big shallow repo > (e.g. one year long history) is served as the common source to reduce > server loads and everything, while the full/big repo is available but > rarely needed. I never saw anyone complain about it (so, likely not > using it). I don't think I've ever seen anybody serve fetches out of a shallow clone in practice (I don't think we ever seriously considered them at GitHub, but given their general incompatibility with reachability bitmaps, I suspect it would cause more performance problems than it solves). I've always imagined people do it for one-offs. E.g., they have a shallow clone, and fetch out of that to a temporary copy. That may be less useful these days with the advent of separate worktrees. -Peff