On Friday, June 7, 2024 8:03 PM, ellie wrote: >Subject: Re: With big repos and slower connections, git clone can be hard to work >with > >Thanks, this is very helpful as an emergency workaround! > >Nevertheless, I usually want the entire history, especially since I wouldn't mind >waiting half an hour. But without resume, I've encountered it regularly that it just >won't complete even if I give it the time, while way longer downloads in the >browser would. The key problem here seems to be the lack of any resume. > >I hope this helps to understand why I made the suggestion. > >Regards, > >Ellie > >On 6/8/24 1:33 AM, rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On Friday, June 7, 2024 7:28 PM, ellie wrote: >>> I'm terribly sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'd like to >>> suggest a potential issue with "git clone". >>> >>> The problem is that any sort of interruption or connection issue, no >>> matter how brief, causes the clone to stop and leave nothing behind: >>> >>> $ git clone https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko >>> Cloning into 'nheko'... >>> remote: Enumerating objects: 43991, done. >>> remote: Counting objects: 100% (6535/6535), done. >>> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1449/1449), done. >>> error: RPC failed; curl 92 HTTP/2 stream 5 was not closed cleanly: >>> CANCEL (err 8) >>> error: 2771 bytes of body are still expected >>> fetch-pack: unexpected disconnect while reading sideband packet >>> fatal: early EOF >>> fatal: fetch-pack: invalid index-pack output $ cd nheko >>> bash: cd: nheko: No such file or director >>> >>> In my experience, this can be really impactful with 1. big repositories and 2. >>> unreliable internet - which I would argue isn't unheard of! E.g. >>> a developer may work via mobile connection on a business trip. The >>> result can even be that a repository is uncloneable for some users! >>> >>> This has left me in the absurd situation where I was able to download >>> a tarball via HTTPS from the git hoster just fine, even way larger >>> binary release items, thanks to the browser's HTTPS resume. And yet a >>> simple git clone of the same project failed repeatedly. >>> >>> My deepest apologies if I missed an option to fix or address this. >>> But summed up, please consider making git clone recover from hiccups. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ellie >>> >>> PS: I've seen git hosters have apparent proxy bugs, like timing out >>> slower git clone connections from the server side even if the >>> transfer is ongoing. A git auto-resume would reduce the impact of that, too. >> >> I suggest that you look into two git topics: --depth, which controls how much >history is obtained in a clone, and sparse-checkout, which describes the part of the >repository you will retrieve. You can prune the contents of the repository so that >clone is faster, if you do not need all of the history, or all of the files. This is typically >done in complex large repositories, particularly those used for production support >as release repositories. Consider doing the clone with --depth=1 then using git fetch --depth=n as the resume. There are other options that effectively give you a resume, including --deepen=n. Build automation, like Jenkins, uses this to speed up the clone/checkout.
