> It is very clear how you are churning the code, but it is utterly > unclear from the description what you perceived as a problem and why > this change is a good (if not the best) solution for that problem, > at least to me. Firstly, thanks for your comments and questions - it's sometimes hard for me to think of the questions someone else would ask when reading one of my patches. I have tried to rewrite the commit message (you can see it at the end of this e-mail) following your questions. The new paragraph 1 addresses what I perceive as a problem, and the new paragraph 2 addresses the ideal and partial solution. > After reading the above description, I cannot shake the feeling that > this is tied too strongly to the tree:0 use case? Does it help > other use cases (e.g. would it be useful or harmful if a lazy clone > was done to exclude blobs that are larger than certain threshold, or > objects of all types that are not referenced by commits younger than > certain threshold)? Yes, it is solely for the tree:0 use case. But it doesn't hurt other use cases, as I have explained in new paragraph 3. I have retained old paragraph 3 as new paragraph 4, and removed old paragraph 2 as it mostly duplicates the comments in the code. New commit message follows: [start commit message] fetch-pack: exclude blobs when lazy-fetching trees A partial clone with missing trees can be obtained using "git clone --filter=tree:none <repo>". In such a repository, when a tree needs to be lazily fetched, any tree or blob it directly or indirectly references is fetched as well, regardless of whether the original command required those objects, or if the local repository already had some of them. This is because the fetch protocol, which the lazy fetch uses, does not allow clients to request that only the wanted objects be sent, which would be the ideal solution. This patch implements a partial solution: specify the "blob:none" filter, somewhat reducing the fetch payload. This change has no effect when lazily fetching blobs (due to how filters work). And if lazily fetching a commit (such repositories are difficult to construct and is not a use case we support very well, but it is possible), referenced commits and trees are still fetched - only the blobs are not fetched. The necessary code change is done in fetch_pack() instead of somewhere closer to where the "filter" instruction is written to the wire so that only one part of the code needs to be changed in order for users of all protocol versions to benefit from this optimization. [end commit message]
