From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: sparse fetch, was Re: [PATCH 08/12] git-clone: support --path to do sparse clone Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:09:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20080723145718.GA29134@laptop> <20080724171952.GB21043@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080724182813.GA21186@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: =?VISCII?Q?Nguy=ADn_Th=E1i_Ng=F7c_Duy?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 25 02:09:32 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KMAsB-00058R-QT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:09:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752332AbYGYAI1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:08:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752339AbYGYAI1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:08:27 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34795 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752224AbYGYAI1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:08:27 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2008 00:08:25 -0000 Received: from 88-107-142-10.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (EHLO eeepc-johanness.st-andrews.ac.uk) [88.107.142.10] by mail.gmx.net (mp061) with SMTP; 25 Jul 2008 02:08:25 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+98odLbAa9jjhucAJF02atqf9WK98yTeDdFjhf/R w9GO7KUP8bl74U X-X-Sender: user@eeepc-johanness In-Reply-To: <20080724182813.GA21186@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.7 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 06:41:03PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > As a user, I would expect "sparse clone" to also be sparse on the > > > fetching. That is, to not even bother fetching tree objects that we > > > are not going to check out. But that is a whole other can of worms > > > from local sparseness, so I think it is worth saving for a different > > > series. > > > > I think this is not even worth of a series. Sure, it would have > > benefits for those who want sparse checkouts. But it comes for a high > > price on everyone else: > > I agree there are a lot of issues. I am just thinking of the person who > said they had a >100G repository. But I am also not volunteering to do > it, so I will let somebody who really cares about it try to defend the > idea. I never said that there were no benefits. I argued that there are too many _downsides_ to those who _don't_ benefit. Ciao, Dscho