Matthijs Kooijman <matth...@stdin.nl> writes:
> Did you consider how to implement this? Looking at the code, it seems
> the "deepen" parameter in the wire protocol now means:
> - 0: Do not change anything about the shallowness (i.e., fetch
> everything from the shallow root to the tip).
> - > 0: Create new shallow commits at depth commits below the tip (so
> depth == 1 means tip and one below).
> - INFINITE_DEPTH (0x7fffffff): Remove all shallowness and fetch
> complete history.
> Given this, I'm not sure how one can express "fetch the tip and nothing
> below that", since depth == 0 already has a different meaning.
Doing it "correctly" (in the shorter term) would involve:
- adding a capability on the sending side "fixed-off-by-one-depth"
to the protocol, and teaching the sending side to advertise the
- teaching the requestor that got --depth=N from the end user to
pay attention to the new capability in such a way that:
- when talking to an old sender (i.e. without the off-by-one
fix), send N-1 for N greater than 1. Punt on N==1;
- when talking to a fixed sender, ask to enable the capability,
and send N as is (including N==1).
- teaching the sending side to see if the new behaviour to fix
off-by-one is asked by the requestor, and stop at the correct
number of commits, not oversending one more. Otherwise retain
the old behaviour.
In the longer term, I think we should introduce a better deepening
> Of course, one could using depth == 1 in this case to receive two
> commits and then drop one, but this would seem a bit pointless to me
> (especially if the commit below the tip is very different from the tip
> leading to a lot of useless data transfer).
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