On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 09:27 -0400, colin walters wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2021, at 3:08 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > I had a look at the code to try and remind myself why it is doing this. > > Thanks! > > > The best answer I found is that it does support filtered fetching of > > remotes, i.e. it can and will only pull the branch it wants/needs rather > > than a full repo clone. In the case of a small repo, it doesn't matter > > much. For a large repo it can make a significant difference to the speed. > > This is with `git clone --single-branch`? Makes sense. > > > We also don't run "test" commands against the remote repo, we figure out > > what we want and then get it with small numbers of commands. > > I think what I'd argue is that in the case where the remote branch is deleted, > the tooling should fall back to listing remote branches, sort by > most recently updated, and try finding the commit on that. > And in practice, explicitly using `main` first in that list would make sense. > > > Is explicitly specifying the branch along with the repo url such a big > > problem? We already have to provide the url, it isn't like we guess that > > too. > > The problem is that your build system is penalizing upstream projects that > are trying to migrate to using `main`.
Some of our users have complained, yes. That isn't a conscious decision on "our" part, just a rather unfortunate and unplanned consequence of the fact we're pretty strict about declaring where we get our sources. The advice to anyone hitting this issue is to add in the correct branch to the SRC_URI. It is simple and easy to do, can be in bbappends or even changed via anonymous python and similar if necessary. We've already found the issue with several core recipes, we simply updated them and most users didn't notice. I would even likely take that kind of change into older otherwise unmaintained branches and I think I did so in at least one case in the past. There is no intent to peanlize or complain, my intent is just to deal with it like any other upstream source change, these things happen all the time. I am stating that here for any other maintainers to read and suggest they follow oe-core's lead. I appreciate the tooling could do all kinds of magic things. I have a strong preference for not adding magic into it, or over complicating it, it is already horrendously complicated and a nightmare to test. I appreciate nobody believes me, I only do my best to maintain it. The code is here for anyone interested: http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/bitbake/lib/bb/fetch2/git.py I'd also note you can add ;nobranch=1 to the urls or ;usehead=1. Those do have side effects, I will not recommend them, or accept them for general use in layers I maintain, they're considered developer options. I was reminded recently that we have seen bugs the branch parameter has caught where a revision was not where we thought it was so these do catch real world issues. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#151725): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/151725 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/82782995/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
