Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Stefan Beller wrote:
>>
>>> Currently it is not possible to have a shallow depth of
>>> just 0, i.e. only one commit in that repository after cloning.
>>> The minimum number of commits is 2, caused by depth=1.
>>
>> 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 do not mind carrying such a (technially) backward incompatible
> change in jn/clone-2.0-depth-off-by-one branch, keep it cooking in
> 'next' for a while and push it out together with other "2.0" topics
> in a future release ;-).
Speaking of --depth, I think in Git 2.0 we should fix the semantics
of "deepening" done with "git fetch".
Its "--depth" parameter is used to specify the new depth of the
history that you can tangle from the updated tip of remote tracking
branches, and it has a rather unpleasant ramifications.
Suppose you start from "git clone --depth=1 $there". You have the
today's snapshot, and one parent behind it. You keep working happily
with the code and then realize that you want to know a bit more
history behind the snapshot you started from.
(upstream)
---o---o---o---A---B
(you)
A---B
So you do:
$ git fetch --depth=3
(upstream)
---o---o---o---A---B---C---D---E---F---...---W---X---Y---Z
(you)
A---B W---X---Y---Z
But in the meantime, if the upstream accumulated 20+ commits, you
end up getting the commit at the updated tip of the upstream, and 3
generations of parents behind it. There will be a 10+ commit worth
of gap between the bottom of the new shallow history and the old tip
you have been working on, and the history becomes disjoint.
I think we need a protocol update to fix this; instead of sending
"Now I want your tips and N commits behind it, please update my
shallow bottom accordingly", which creates the above by giving you Z
and 3 generations back and updates your cut-off point to W, the
receiving end should be able to ask "I have a shallow history that
cuts off at these commits. I want to get the history leading up to
your tips, and also deepen the history further back from my current
cut-off points by N commits", so that you would instead end up with
something like this:
(you)
o---o---o---A---B---C---D---E---F---...---W---X---Y---Z
That is, truly "deepen my history by 3". We could call that "git
fetch --deepen=3" or something.
--
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