On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:51:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Yup, something like this on top of d22eb04 to be merged before >> v2.9.1 for the maintenance track would be necessary. >> >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: clone: do not let --depth imply --shallow-submodules >> >> In v2.9.0, we prematurely flipped the default to force cloning >> submodules shallowly, when the superproject is getting cloned >> shallowly. This is likely to fail when the upstream repositories >> submodules are cloned from a repository that is not prepared to >> serve histories that ends at a commit that is not at the tip of a >> branch, and we know the world is not yet ready. >> >> Use a safer default to clone the submodules fully, unless the user >> tells us that she knows that the upstream repository of the >> submodules are willing to cooperate with "--shallow-submodules" >> option. > > Yeah, this looks good. To minor comments: I agree, but I find the second concern a bit more than just minor. > >> @@ -730,8 +730,7 @@ static int checkout(void) >> struct argv_array args = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT; >> argv_array_pushl(&args, "submodule", "update", "--init", "--recursive", NULL); >> >> - if (option_shallow_submodules == 1 >> - || (option_shallow_submodules == -1 && option_depth)) >> + if (option_shallow_submodules == 1) >> argv_array_push(&args, "--depth=1"); > > I hadn't paid much attention to this topic originally, but was surprised > that "--depth 10" in the clone implies "--depth 1" in the submodule. > This is not really related to your patch (in fact, your patch makes the > logic go away). But maybe something to consider if it's ever resurrected > (or possibly if somebody runs "--shallow-submodules --depth 5" we should > pass --depth=1; I dunno). How often do we see a depth != 1 in practice? I have the impression (and no data to back up my claim) that a binary switch for nonshallow or depth 1 would serve us just as good, which is why I did not want to ad complexity to the submodule depth. (What if you want submodule A with depth 2 and B with 5? In that case get them all shallow and deepen as appropriate, would be my answer) > >> -test_expect_success 'shallow clone implies shallow submodule' ' >> +test_expect_success 'shallow clone does not imply shallow submodule' ' >> test_when_finished "rm -rf super_clone" && >> - git clone --recurse-submodules --depth 2 "file://$pwd/." super_clone && >> + git clone --recurse-submodules --depth 2 --shallow-submodules "file://$pwd/." super_clone && >> ( >> cd super_clone && >> git log --oneline >lines && > > We are not really testing "does not imply" here, but "passing > --shallow-submodules works". The "does not imply" test would be cloning > without the option and checking that the resulting submodules are not > shallow. In case we want to be sure that it works for 2.9.1, i.e. we treat it as a regression, we need to test the "does not imply" a bit more I would think. I can send that test on top tomorrow if you'd like to. Thanks, Stefan > > -Peff -- 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