Did any of you read my email? Getting a shallow clone is simply not possible, unless you want to continue to write this boilerplate code.
These large transactions are a one-time action, and I see no harm. Thank you, William Giokas On Apr 6, 2013 8:47 AM, "Rashif Ray Rahman" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 April 2013 15:25, Tai-Lin Chu <[email protected]> wrote: > > yes, i agree with you. But as a person who commits patches and needs > > to test, I think using --depth 1 makes initial cloning faster and > > decreases the load of remote git server. Think about this 100 people > > clones vlc.git with shadow (around 600mb) vs without shadow (around > > 10000mb)... its not just about whether you care it or not; please > > preserve resources of other projects. > > I personally like small checkouts. If I am testing software, I don't > really need much of its history, and I don't need to be able to commit > anything. If I'm developing software, I'll have a separate directory > with full checkouts anyway. VCS differences apply, though. > > There is really no pragmatic difference between copying with cp and > exporting (Subversion) or cloning (Git) a VCS repo, except when you > don't know what you're doing. If you make changes, a cp may not copy > what you intend to copy, or vice-versa with export/clone. > > IMO, keeping checkouts lean and mean for building experimental > packages is a good idea. VCS repos take a lot of space, and in the > event you want to maintain package repos with them, you'd like the > extra space saved. > > However, we need equivalent methods for every VCS we care to support > ('depth' doesn't mean the same thing in svn, for instance), and we > need to provide a mechanism to choose to keep depths (so that you may > choose to reuse repos for your own use with full history and what > not). > > > -- > GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1 >
