| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/07/14 06:58, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Can we do that without requiring the git replace stuff? E.g. have |
| 7 |
>>> dev.git be a shallow clone of a joined-history.git? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> That was the original plan I suggested abandoning in my email, for the |
| 10 |
>> reasons stated in my email. None of them had to do with repository |
| 11 |
>> size, actually, though having a repository with an obsolete 1.5GB |
| 12 |
>> history embedded certainly isn't ideal. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What does a shallow clone mean exactly? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It means a git repository that does not contain the full history. |
| 19 |
That is, if you take one of the heads, such as master, and follow the |
| 20 |
parent commits back, you eventually reach a commit that isn't actually |
| 21 |
in the repository. Git now has a --depth option to allow making them |
| 22 |
easily in a clone operation. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Not all operations may work on them, but I've found conflicting |
| 25 |
stories online about what is/isn't possible. Generally you would |
| 26 |
probably want full clones in all the official repositories to avoid |
| 27 |
issues. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives