Hi Bruno, On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 11:50:13 +0100 Bruno Haible <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Glenn, > > In this thread, on 2021-10-24 I replied: > > > I'm thinking of replacing the current comment with > > > something along the lines of: > > > > > > Git does not support cloning by commit hash. So attempt a shallow > > > fetch by commit hash to minimize the amount of data downloaded and > > > changes needed to be processed, which can drastically reduce download > > > and processing time for checkout. If the fetch by commit fails, a > > > shallow fetch can not be performed because we do not know what the > > > depth of the commit is without fetching all commits. So fallback to > > > fetching all commits. > > > > That's a good comment. Thanks. > > There's no other objection to your patch. Can you repost it, with the > comment added? Then it can go in, I would say. > > Simon explained that there is a Gitlab specific workaround to the > problem. But IMO if we have a general one that works also on Savannah, > GitHub, etc., the better. As I understand it, Simon's issue is also slightly different that the one this patch addresses because he's using gnulib as a git submodule, this patch is not for these kinds of setups. Also, I don't think his solution gets rid of the initial overhead, its basically just a caching scheme. I posted a v2 of the patch back in October with the requested comment above. I'm guessing it got missed. If you still want me to repost the v2 patch please let me know. Glenn [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2021-10/msg00073.html
