Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 07:34:08AM -0700, Caleb Gray wrote: >> ... >> To subsequent clones (until cache invalidated) using the "flattened >> cache" version (presumably built while fulfilling the first clone >> request above): >> >> Cloning into 'linux'... >> Receiving cache: 100% (7344127/7344127), 1.22 GiB | 8.51 MiB/s, done. > > I don't think it's a common workflow for someone to repeatedly clone > linux.git. Automated processes like CI would be doing it, but they tend > to blow away the local disk between jobs, so they are unlikely to > benefit from any native git local cache for something like this (in > fact, we recommend that people use clone.bundle files for their CI > needs, as described here: > https://www.kernel.org/best-way-to-do-linux-clones-for-your-ci.html). I have a feeling that the use case you are talking about is different from what the original message assumes what use case needs to be helped (even though the original message lacks substance and it is hard to guess what idea is being proposed). Given the phrase like "while fulfilling the first clone request", I took it to mean that a cache would sit on the source side, not on the client side. You seem to be talking about keeping a copy of what you earlier cloned to save incoming bandwidth on the client side.
