Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Stefan Beller wrote: >> >>> Currently it is not possible to have a shallow depth of >>> just 0, i.e. only one commit in that repository after cloning. >>> The minimum number of commits is 2, caused by depth=1. >> >> Sounds buggy. Would anything break if we were to make --depth=1 mean >> "1 deep, including the tip commit"? > > As long as we do not change the meaning of the "shallow" count going > over the wire (i.e. the number we receive from the user will be > fudged, so that user's "depth 1" that used to mean "the tip and one > behind it" is expressed as "depth 2" at the end-user level, and we > send over the wire the number that corresponded to the old "depth > 1"), I do not think anything will break, and then --depth=0 may > magically start meaning "only the tip; its immediate parents will > not be transferred and recorded as the shallow boundary in the > receiving repository". > > I do not mind carrying such a (technially) backward incompatible > change in jn/clone-2.0-depth-off-by-one branch, keep it cooking in > 'next' for a while and push it out together with other "2.0" topics > in a future release ;-).
Speaking of --depth, I think in Git 2.0 we should fix the semantics of "deepening" done with "git fetch". Its "--depth" parameter is used to specify the new depth of the history that you can tangle from the updated tip of remote tracking branches, and it has a rather unpleasant ramifications. Suppose you start from "git clone --depth=1 $there". You have the today's snapshot, and one parent behind it. You keep working happily with the code and then realize that you want to know a bit more history behind the snapshot you started from. (upstream) ---o---o---o---A---B (you) A---B So you do: $ git fetch --depth=3 (upstream) ---o---o---o---A---B---C---D---E---F---...---W---X---Y---Z (you) A---B W---X---Y---Z But in the meantime, if the upstream accumulated 20+ commits, you end up getting the commit at the updated tip of the upstream, and 3 generations of parents behind it. There will be a 10+ commit worth of gap between the bottom of the new shallow history and the old tip you have been working on, and the history becomes disjoint. I think we need a protocol update to fix this; instead of sending "Now I want your tips and N commits behind it, please update my shallow bottom accordingly", which creates the above by giving you Z and 3 generations back and updates your cut-off point to W, the receiving end should be able to ask "I have a shallow history that cuts off at these commits. I want to get the history leading up to your tips, and also deepen the history further back from my current cut-off points by N commits", so that you would instead end up with something like this: (you) o---o---o---A---B---C---D---E---F---...---W---X---Y---Z That is, truly "deepen my history by 3". We could call that "git fetch --deepen=3" or something. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html