2012/1/7 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> My first reaction after reading "is implied by default" was "Huh? didn't
> we just read these kick in only when --depth is given?" and I had to read
> it again. Here is my attempt to rephrase it.
>
> Clone only the history leading to the tip of a single branch,
> either specified by the `--branch` option or the primary branch
> remote's `HEAD` points at. When creating a shallow clone with the
> `--depth` option, this is the default, unless `--no-single-branch`
> is given to fetch the histories near the tips of all branches.
>
> Currently this option only works when creating a shallow clone and
> does not have any effect without the `--depth` option.
>
> We might want to later enhance this to work also with a full-depth clone
> that tracks only one branch, and the above phrasing would make it clear.
Interesting. Yes that's another possibility.
>> + if (!option_branch)
>> + remote_head = guess_remote_head(head, refs, 0);
>> + else {
>> + struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
>> + strbuf_addstr(&sb, src_ref_prefix);
>> + strbuf_addstr(&sb, option_branch);
>> + remote_head = find_ref_by_name(refs, sb.buf);
>> + strbuf_release(&sb);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!remote_head)
>> + die(_("Remote branch \"%s\" not found. Nothing to clone.\n"
>> + "Try --no-single-branch to fetch all refs."),
>> + option_branch ? option_branch : "HEAD");
>
> Switching upon option_branch to tweak the message is a good idea, but
> strictly speaking, we would hit this die() when guess_remote_head() does
> not find where HEAD points at because it is detached, and in that case,
> the error is not "Nothing to clone", but "We couldn't tell which branch
> you meant to limit this cloning to".
Yeah. And in detached case without --branch, we probably should not
say anything.
>> @@ -642,9 +679,12 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>
>> transport_set_option(transport, TRANS_OPT_KEEP, "yes");
>>
>> - if (option_depth)
>> + if (option_depth) {
>> transport_set_option(transport, TRANS_OPT_DEPTH,
>> option_depth);
>> + transport_set_option(transport, TRANS_OPT_FOLLOWTAGS,
>> + option_single_branch ? "1" : NULL);
>
> Curious. Does anybody set FOLLOWTAGS to the transport by default becore we
> come here (just asking)?
No, I just hate another "if (option_single_branch)", which indents the
call one more time. Always setting it to "1" in this case should
probably be OK too. I'm just not sure if upload-pack realizes all tags
are requested so include-tag extension means nothing, or it does extra
work for no gain.
--
Duy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html