Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Well spotted. It would be a good idea to commit the big comment > > from contrib/examples/git-fetch.sh to fetch_local_nocopy() > > function, which would have made us realize that the patch does > > not refrain from applying this optimization even when shallow > > is in effect. But I think that is actually a good change. > > I take this back. This regresses badly. > > Why? Whoops. Good catch. This is why you had a check for the shallow history file in git-fetch.sh before you took this optimization path. My fault for not including it in this patch. > Because the optimization is useless when we are trying to deepen > the shallow history. When you are trying to deepen a shallow > history and the tips of remotes haven't moved since you fetched > from there the last time, you have everything near the tip, and > becuse your history is shallow, your ancestry chain is > cauterized to make it appear that the history is complete. The > rev-list reachability test would not fail as we expect. What about just inserting a check to see if --depth was supplied to git-fetch on the command line? If so then we are deepening the history and we just bypass the rev-list "fast path" test. I will be posting an updated patch (series now) shortly. -- Shawn. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
