On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> 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'd rather we reserve 0 for unlimited fetch, something we haven't done so far . And because "unlimited clone" with --depth does not make sense, --depth=0 should be rejected by git-clone.  If we don't want to break the protocol, we could make depth 0xffffffff a special value as "unlimited" for newer git. Older git works most of the time, until some project exceeds 4G commit depth history. -- Duy -- 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