git/Documentation/git-clone.txt, branch v2.9.2

Merge branch 'sb/clone-shallow-passthru' into maint

2016-07-11T17:44:12Z

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

clone: do not let --depth imply --shallow-submodules

2016-06-20T18:35:28Z

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 Helped-by: Jeff King Helped-by: Stefan Beller Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'sb/clone-shallow-passthru'

2016-05-06T21:45:43Z

"git clone" learned "--shallow-submodules" option. * sb/clone-shallow-passthru: clone: add `--shallow-submodules` flag

clone: add `--shallow-submodules` flag

2016-04-26T17:43:11Z

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 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'sb/submodule-parallel-update'

2016-04-06T18:39:01Z

A major part of "git submodule update" has been ported to C to take advantage of the recently added framework to run download tasks in parallel. * sb/submodule-parallel-update: clone: allow an explicit argument for parallel submodule clones submodule update: expose parallelism to the user submodule helper: remove double 'fatal: ' prefix git submodule update: have a dedicated helper for cloning run_processes_parallel: rename parameters for the callbacks run_processes_parallel: treat output of children as byte array submodule update: direct error message to stderr fetching submodules: respect `submodule.fetchJobs` config option submodule-config: drop check against NULL submodule-config: keep update strategy around

clone: allow an explicit argument for parallel submodule clones

2016-03-01T19:57:21Z

Just pass it along to "git submodule update", which may pick reasonable defaults if you don't specify an explicit number. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'jk/drop-rsync-transport'

2016-02-17T18:13:28Z

It turns out "git clone" over rsync transport has been broken when the source repository has packed references for a long time, and nobody noticed nor complained about it. * jk/drop-rsync-transport: transport: drop support for git-over-rsync

transport: drop support for git-over-rsync

2016-02-01T21:07:41Z

The git-over-rsync protocol is inefficient and broken, and has been for a long time. It transfers way more objects than it needs (grabbing all of the remote's "objects/", regardless of which objects we need). It does its own ad-hoc parsing of loose and packed refs from the remote, but doesn't properly override packed refs with loose ones, leading to garbage results (e.g., expecting the other side to have an object pointed to by a stale packed-refs entry, or complaining that the other side has two copies of the refs[1]). This latter breakage means that nobody could have successfully pulled from a moderately active repository since cd547b4 (fetch/push: readd rsync support, 2007-10-01). We never made an official deprecation notice in the release notes for git's rsync protocol, but the tutorial has marked it as such since 914328a (Update tutorial., 2005-08-30). And on the mailing list as far back as Oct 2005, we can find Junio mentioning it as having "been deprecated for quite some time."[2,3,4]. So it was old news then; cogito had deprecated the transport in July of 2005[5] (though it did come back briefly when Linus broke git-http-pull!). Of course some people professed their love of rsync through 2006, but Linus clarified in his usual gentle manner[6]: > Thanks! This is why I still use rsync, even though > everybody and their mother tells me "Linus says rsync is > deprecated." No. You're using rsync because you're actively doing something _wrong_. The deprecation sentiment was reinforced in 2008, with a mention that cloning via rsync is broken (with no fix)[7]. Even the commit porting rsync over to C from shell (cd547b4) lists it as deprecated! So between the 10 years of informal warnings, and the fact that it has been severely broken since 2007, it's probably safe to simply remove it without further deprecation warnings. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/285101 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/10093 [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/17734 [4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/18911 [5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5617 [6] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/19354 [7] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/103635 Signed-off-by: Jeff King Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano

Merge branch 'ss/clone-depth-single-doc'

2016-01-20T19:43:35Z

Documentation for "git fetch --depth" has been updated for clarity. * ss/clone-depth-single-doc: docs: clarify that --depth for git-fetch works with newly initialized repos docs: say "commits" in the --depth option wording for git-clone docs: clarify that passing --depth to git-clone implies --single-branch

docs: say "commits" in the --depth option wording for git-clone

2016-01-08T20:39:58Z

It is not wrong to talk about "revisions" here, but in this context revisions are always commits, and that is how we already name it in the git-fetch docs. So align the docs by always referring to "commits". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano