Hi Tao On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 22:23, Tao Klerks <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What I believe is happening is that *if* there are refs to be updated > (or new refs, presumably), *then* the objects returned to the client > are only those required for those refs. If, on the other hand, there > are no updated refs, then you get what is advertised in the doc: "all > objects as a fresh clone would [...]". > > I've tested a couple of different scenarios and the behavior seems > consistent with this explanation. Do you have a repo & steps that could reproduce this easily? Otherwise I can try and work up something. > Is this a bug, or expected behavior that should be noted in the doc, > or do we consider the multiple-independent-branches usecase to be > edge-casey enough to be an easter egg for people like me? At first glance it appears to be a bug. Thanks, Rob :)
