Fix an unintended regression in v2.9 that breaks "clone --depth"
that recurses down to submodules by forcing the submodules to also
be cloned shallowly, which many server instances that host upstream
of the submodules are not prepared for.
* sb/clone-shallow-passthru:
clone: do not let --depth imply --shallow-submodules
Using a subshell for just one git command is both a waste in compute
overhead (create a new process) as well as in line count.
Suggested-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In v2.9.0, we prematurely flipped the default to force cloning
submodules shallowly, when the superproject is getting cloned
shallowly. This is likely to fail when the upstream repositories
submodules are cloned from a repository that is not prepared to
serve histories that ends at a commit that is not at the tip of a
branch, and we know the world is not yet ready.
Use a safer default to clone the submodules fully, unless the user
tells us that she knows that the upstream repository of the
submodules are willing to cooperate with "--shallow-submodules"
option.
Noticed-by: Vadim Eisenberg <VADIME@il.ibm.com>
Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Helped-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sometimes the history of a submodule is not considered important by
the projects upstream. To make it easier for downstream users, allow
a boolean field 'submodule.<name>.shallow' in .gitmodules, which can
be used to recommend whether upstream considers the history important.
This field is honored in the initial clone by default, it can be
ignored by giving the `--no-recommend-shallow` option.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth
argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done
as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the
depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need to have the possibility
to do all kinds of combinations:
* shallow super project with shallow submodules
e.g. build bots starting always from scratch. They want to transmit
the least amount of network data as well as using the least amount
of space on their hard drive.
* shallow super project with unshallow submodules
e.g. The superproject is just there to track a collection of repositories
and it is not important to have the relationship between the repositories
intact. However the history of the individual submodules matter.
* unshallow super project with shallow submodules
e.g. The superproject is the actual project and the submodule is a
library which is rarely touched.
The new switch to select submodules to be shallow or unshallow supports
all of these three cases.
It is easy to transition from the first to the second case by just
unshallowing the submodules (`git submodule foreach git fetch
--unshallow`), but it is not possible to transition from the second to the
first case (as we would have already transmitted the non shallow over
the network). That is why we want to make the first case the default in
case of a shallow super project. This leads to the inconvenience in the
second case with the shallow super project and unshallow submodules,
as you need to pass `--no-shallow-submodules`.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
