Hi! Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On mer., 26 avril 2023 at 11:50, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >>> swh:1:rev:1984d56b0e437af7be7fa6cf8e1a00e45eb8ffa1.git/ >>> swh:1:rev:1984d56b0e437af7be7fa6cf8e1a00e45eb8ffa1.git/HEAD >>> swh:1:rev:1984d56b0e437af7be7fa6cf8e1a00e45eb8ffa1.git/branches/ >>> swh:1:rev:1984d56b0e437af7be7fa6cf8e1a00e45eb8ffa1.git/config >>> swh:1:rev:1984d56b0e437af7be7fa6cf8e1a00e45eb8ffa1.git/description > > [...] > > >> I suspect this is an issue at SWH. I’ll bring it up there. > > Aside the potential bug on SWH side, maybe we could ask a flat cooking > instead of a git-bare cooking. > > Considering the size of the Guix repository, it can take hours to cook > it – remember the test with CRLF ;-) – when most of the time, we need > only one specific revision. > > Somehow, we could tweak ’clone-from-swh’ from (guix git) to use 'flat > instead of 'git-bare. However, I am unsure the other tweaks it would > require since a Git repository is somehow expected. Yeah, ‘clone-from-swh’ is really cloning, so it needs ‘git-bare’. Generally, in the case of channels, we need a full clone, not just a revision. Various bits of the machinery expect the clone: (guix describe), (guix channels), and so on. Ludo’.
