git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, jonathantanmy@google.com,
	christian.couder@gmail.com, git@jeffhostetler.com,
	Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 05:51:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200322095137.GB635598@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pull.586.git.1584638887.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

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?

-Peff

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-03-22  9:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-19 17:28 Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-19 17:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] partial-clone: set default filter with --partial Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-20 20:26   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-20 20:38     ` Derrick Stolee
2020-03-22  9:46       ` Jeff King
2020-03-19 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] clone: document --partial and --filter options Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-20 12:27 ` [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience Derrick Stolee
2020-03-22  9:51 ` Jeff King [this message]
2020-03-22 10:58   ` Christian Couder
2020-03-22 16:45     ` Derrick Stolee
2020-03-22 19:22       ` Jeff King
2020-03-22 16:03 ` Taylor Blau
2020-03-22 19:50 ` [PATCH v2] clone: document --filter options Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-24  3:40   ` Jeff King
2020-03-24  5:17   ` Jonathan Nieder

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

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200322095137.GB635598@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
    --cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
    --cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
    --cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience' \
    /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

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 NNTP newsgroup(s).