Re: [PATCH 1/9] extension.partialclone: introduce partial clone extension
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:39:19 -0700
- From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] extension.partialclone: introduce partial clone extension
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:57:18 -0400
Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/2/2017 6:24 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:20:44 +0000
> > Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Introduce the ability to have missing objects in a repo. This
> >> functionality is guarded by new repository extension options:
> >> `extensions.partialcloneremote` and
> >> `extensions.partialclonefilter`.
> > With this, it is unclear what happens if extensions.partialcloneremote
> > is not set but extensions.partialclonefilter is set. For something as
> > significant as a repository extension (which Git uses to determine if it
> > will even attempt to interact with a repo), I think - I would prefer
> > just extensions.partialclone (or extensions.partialcloneremote, though I
> > prefer the former) which determines the remote (the important part,
> > which controls the dynamic object fetching), and have another option
> > "core.partialclonefilter" which is only useful if
> > "extensions.partialclone" is set.
> Yes, that is a point I wanted to ask about. I renamed the
> extensions.partialclone that you created and then I moved your
> remote.<name>.blob-max-bytes setting to be in extensions too.
> Moving it to core.partialclonefilter is fine.
OK - in that case, it might be easier to just reuse my first patch in
its entirety. "core.partialclonefilter" is not used until the
fetching/cloning part anyway.
I agree that "core.partialclonefilter" (or another place not in
"remote") instead of "remote.<name>.blob-max-bytes" is a good idea - in
the future, we might want to reuse the same filter setting for