On 3/22/2020 6:58 AM, Christian Couder wrote: > 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. Thanks for the perspective on this. The --filter-blobs[=<size>] should be less likely to collide with an alternative definition of "partial". While we are thinking in this space, what if we had a "partial-clone" builtin? It could be a light wrapper around "git clone" where git partial-clone [--limit=<size>] [options] <url> [<dir>] would do the same thing as git clone --filter=blob:[none|limit=<size>] [options] <url> [<dir>] Just spit-balling here. In the meantime, I'll work to adjust my patches to only be the documentation of the --filter option. Thanks, -Stolee
