On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 10:51 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 05:28:05PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > This was something discussed briefly at the contributor summit: users will > > have a hard time remembering git clone --filter=blob:none <url>. This series > > simply adds a --partial option that is equivalent to --filter=blob:none, > > with the ability to specify a size using --partial=<size> that is equivalent > > to --filter=blob:limit=<size>. > > I have mixed feelings on this. I do like making things less arcane for > users. But are we locking in a behavior for --partial that we might not > want to live with forever? I.e., the current thinking for partial clones > is to fetch no blobs at all, get all commits and trees, apply sparse > filters, and then fault in the blobs we need. But imagine we later grow > the ability to easily avoid fetching all of the trees. Would we regret > having the simple name "--partial" taken? I agree with that. Something like "--filter-blobs" for "--filter=blob:none" and perhaps "--filter-blobs=<size>" for "--filter=blob:limit=<size>" might be worth it though.
