On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> I agree. How about `currentdir`, `testdir` or `testtop` instead?
>> That is slightly longer than `D`, `here` or `top`, but is slightly more
>> informative. $TRASH would also work for me.
>
> I would not be happy t
Stefan Beller writes:
> I agree. How about `currentdir`, `testdir` or `testtop` instead?
> That is slightly longer than `D`, `here` or `top`, but is slightly more
> informative. $TRASH would also work for me.
I would not be happy to see a patch that adds yet another variable
that is never used s
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> This replaces origin/sb/clone-shallow-passthru.
>> @@ -190,7 +190,11 @@ objects from the source repository into a pack in the
>> cloned repository.
>>
>> --depth ::
>> Create a 'shallow' clone with a his
Stefan Beller writes:
> This replaces origin/sb/clone-shallow-passthru.
> @@ -190,7 +190,11 @@ objects from the source repository into a pack in the
> cloned repository.
>
> --depth ::
> Create a 'shallow' clone with a history truncated to the
> - specified number of revisions.
>
When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the
depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need to have the possibility
to do al
Stefan Beller writes:
> you'd fetch as usual without moving the anchor point. You could have
> options like
>
> $ git fetch --recurse-submodules[=label/pattern]
> --unshallow-submodules[=label/pattern]
> ...
> So the first one should be shallowed after fetch, but the second would
> fetch or e
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> Why is it interesting for submodules but not for standard repositories?
>>
>> If I clone a repository without submodules, it is also not recorded
>> that I cloned with an explicit depth=1. If you fetch, you may e
Stefan Beller writes:
> Why is it interesting for submodules but not for standard repositories?
>
> If I clone a repository without submodules, it is also not recorded
> that I cloned with an explicit depth=1. If you fetch, you may end up with
> a deeper history as git fetch doesn't do a "reshall
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
>> argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
>> as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is
Stefan Beller writes:
> When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
> argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
> as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the
> depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need
When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the
depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need to have the possibility
to do al
11 matches
Mail list logo
