On 11/3/2017 2:39 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:57:18 -0400
Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/2/2017 6:24 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:20:44 +0000
Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Introduce the ability to have missing objects in a repo. This
functionality is guarded by new repository extension options:
`extensions.partialcloneremote` and
`extensions.partialclonefilter`.
With this, it is unclear what happens if extensions.partialcloneremote
is not set but extensions.partialclonefilter is set. For something as
significant as a repository extension (which Git uses to determine if it
will even attempt to interact with a repo), I think - I would prefer
just extensions.partialclone (or extensions.partialcloneremote, though I
prefer the former) which determines the remote (the important part,
which controls the dynamic object fetching), and have another option
"core.partialclonefilter" which is only useful if
"extensions.partialclone" is set.
Yes, that is a point I wanted to ask about. I renamed the
extensions.partialclone that you created and then I moved your
remote.<name>.blob-max-bytes setting to be in extensions too.
Moving it to core.partialclonefilter is fine.
OK - in that case, it might be easier to just reuse my first patch in
its entirety. "core.partialclonefilter" is not used until the
fetching/cloning part anyway.
Good point. I'll take a look at refactoring that.
If it looks like the result will be mostly/effectively
your original patches, I'll let you know and hand part 2
back to you.
I agree that "core.partialclonefilter" (or another place not in
"remote") instead of "remote.<name>.blob-max-bytes" is a good idea - in
the future, we might want to reuse the same filter setting for
non-fetching functionality.
Jeff
