Commit 5e3548ef16 ("fetch: send server options when using protocol v2",
2018-04-24) taught "fetch" the ability to send server options when using
protocol v2, but not "clone". This ability is triggered by "-o" or
"--server-option".
Teach "clone" the same ability, except that because "clone" already
has "-o" for another parameter, teach "clone" only to receive
"--server-option".
Explain in the documentation, both for clone and for fetch, that server
handling of server options are server-specific. This is similar to
receive-pack's handling of push options - currently, they are just sent
to hooks to interpret as they see fit.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Due to limitations in the current implementation, some configuration
variables specified via 'git clone -c var=val' (or 'git -c var=val
clone') are ignored during the initial fetch and checkout.
Let the users know which configuration variables are known to be
ignored ('remote.origin.mirror' and 'remote.origin.tagOpt') under the
documentation of 'git clone -c', along with hints to use the options
'--mirror' and '--no-tags' instead.
Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When formatted as a man page, 1st section header is always in upper
case even if we write it otherwise. Make all 1st section headers
uppercase to keep it close to the final output.
This does affect html since case is kept there, but I still think it's
a good idea to maintain a consistent style for 1st section headers.
Some sections perhaps should become second sections instead, where
case is kept, and for better organization. I will update if anyone has
suggestions about this.
While at there I also make some header more consistent (e.g. examples
vs example) and fix a couple minor things here and there.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The description of the <repository> argument directs readers to "See the
URLS section below". When generating HTML this becomes a link to the
"GIT URLS" section. When reading the man page in a terminal, the
caption is slightly misleading. Use "GIT URLS" as the caption to avoid
any confusion.
Signed-off-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There have been a few complaints on the mailing list that git-clone doesn't
respect the `submodule.recurse` setting, which every other command (that
potentially knows how to deal with submodules) respects. In case of clone
this is not beneficial to respect as the user may not want to obtain all
submodules (assuming a pathspec of '.').
Improve the documentation such that the pathspec is mentioned in the
synopsis to alleviate the confusion around the submodule recursion flag
in git-clone.
While at it clarify that the option can be given multiple times for complex
pathspecs.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add a --no-tags option to clone without fetching any tags.
Without this change there's no easy way to clone a repository without
also fetching its tags.
When supplying --single-branch the primary remote branch will be
cloned, but in addition tags will be followed & retrieved. Now
--no-tags can be added --single-branch to clone a repository without
tags, and which only tracks a single upstream branch.
This option works without --single-branch as well, and will do a
normal clone but not fetch any tags.
Many git commands pay some fixed overhead as a function of the number
of references. E.g. creating ~40k tags in linux.git will cause a
command like `git log -1 >/dev/null` to run in over a second instead
of in a matter of milliseconds, in addition numerous other things will
slow down, e.g. "git log <TAB>" with the bash completion will slowly
show ~40k references instead of 1.
The user might want to avoid all of that overhead to simply use a
repository like that to browse the "master" branch, or something like
a CI tool might want to keep that one branch up-to-date without caring
about any other references.
Without this change the only way of accomplishing this was either by
manually tweaking the config in a fresh repository:
git init git &&
cat >git/.git/config <<EOF &&
[remote "origin"]
url = git@github.com:git/git.git
tagOpt = --no-tags
fetch = +refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master
[branch "master"]
remote = origin
merge = refs/heads/master
EOF
cd git &&
git pull
Which requires hardcoding the "master" name, which may not be the main
--single-branch would have retrieved, or alternatively by setting
tagOpt=--no-tags right after cloning & deleting any existing tags:
git clone --single-branch git@github.com:git/git.git &&
cd git &&
git config remote.origin.tagOpt --no-tags &&
git tag -l | xargs git tag -d
Which of course was also subtly buggy if --branch was pointed at a
tag, leaving the user in a detached head:
git clone --single-branch --branch v2.12.0 git@github.com:git/git.git &&
cd git &&
git config remote.origin.tagOpt --no-tags &&
git tag -l | xargs git tag -d
Now all this complexity becomes the much simpler:
git clone --single-branch --no-tags git@github.com:git/git.git
Or in the case of cloning a single tag "branch":
git clone --single-branch --branch v2.12.0 --no-tags git@github.com:git/git.git
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Teach clone --recurse-submodules to optionally take a pathspec argument
which describes which submodules should be recursively initialized and
cloned. If no pathspec is provided, --recurse-submodules will
recursively initialize and clone all submodules by using a default
pathspec of ".". In order to construct more complex pathspecs,
--recurse-submodules can be given multiple times.
This also configures the 'submodule.active' configuration option to be
the given pathspec, such that any future invocation of `git submodule
update` will keep up with the pathspec.
Additionally the switch '--recurse' is removed from the Documentation as
well as marked hidden in the options array, to streamline the options
for submodules. A simple '--recurse' doesn't convey what is being
recursed, e.g. it could mean directories or trees (c.f. ls-tree) In a
lot of other commands we already have '--recurse-submodules' to mean
recursing into submodules, so advertise this spelling here as the
genuine option.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The existing "git fetch --depth=<n>" option was hard to use
correctly when making the history of an existing shallow clone
deeper. A new option, "--deepen=<n>", has been added to make this
easier to use. "git clone" also learned "--shallow-since=<date>"
and "--shallow-exclude=<tag>" options to make it easier to specify
"I am interested only in the recent N months worth of history" and
"Give me only the history since that version".
* nd/shallow-deepen: (27 commits)
fetch, upload-pack: --deepen=N extends shallow boundary by N commits
upload-pack: add get_reachable_list()
upload-pack: split check_unreachable() in two, prep for get_reachable_list()
t5500, t5539: tests for shallow depth excluding a ref
clone: define shallow clone boundary with --shallow-exclude
fetch: define shallow boundary with --shallow-exclude
upload-pack: support define shallow boundary by excluding revisions
refs: add expand_ref()
t5500, t5539: tests for shallow depth since a specific date
clone: define shallow clone boundary based on time with --shallow-since
fetch: define shallow boundary with --shallow-since
upload-pack: add deepen-since to cut shallow repos based on time
shallow.c: implement a generic shallow boundary finder based on rev-list
fetch-pack: use a separate flag for fetch in deepening mode
fetch-pack.c: mark strings for translating
fetch-pack: use a common function for verbose printing
fetch-pack: use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with()
upload-pack: move rev-list code out of check_non_tip()
upload-pack: make check_non_tip() clean things up on error
upload-pack: tighten number parsing at "deepen" lines
...
In a later patch we want to try to create alternates for submodules,
but they might not exist in the referenced superproject. So add a way
to skip the non existing references and report them.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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
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>
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>
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
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 <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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
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 <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
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
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 <gitster@pobox.com>
It is confusing to document how --depth behaves as part of the
--single-branch docs. Better move that part to the --depth docs, saying
that it implies --single-branch by default.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "--reference" option is not the only way to provide a repository
to borrow objects from. A repository that borrows from another
repository can be cloned with "clone --local" and the resulting
repository will borrow from the same repository, which the user
may want to "--dissociate" from.
Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While use of the --reference option to borrow objects from an
existing local repository of the same project is an effective way to
reduce traffic when cloning a project over the network, it makes the
resulting "borrowing" repository dependent on the "borrowed"
repository. After running
git clone --reference=P $URL Q
the resulting repository Q will be broken if the borrowed repository
P disappears.
The way to allow the borrowed repository to be removed is to repack
the borrowing repository (i.e. run "git repack -a -d" in Q); while
power users may know it very well, it is not easily discoverable.
Teach a new "--dissociate" option to "git clone" to run this
repacking for the user.
Helped-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Current text claims optimization, implying the use of
hardlinks, when this option ratchets down the level of
efficiency. This change explains the difference made by
using this option, namely copying instead of hardlinking,
and why it may be useful.
Signed-off-by: Albert L. Lash, IV <alash3@bloomberg.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Now that git supports data transfer from or to a shallow clone, these
limitations are not true anymore.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This reverts commit dacd2bcc41.
"It fails reliably without corrupting the receiving repository when
it should fail" may be better than the situation before the receiving
end was hardened recently, but the fact that sometimes the push does
not go through still remains. It is better to advice the users that
they cannot push from a shallow repository as a limitation before
they decide to use (or not to use) a shallow clone.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The document says one cannot push from a shallow clone. But that is
not true (maybe it was at some point in the past). The client does not
stop such a push nor does it give any indication to the receiver that
this is a shallow push. If the receiver accepts it, it's in.
Since 52fed6e (receive-pack: check connectivity before concluding "git
push" - 2011-09-02), receive-pack is prepared to deal with broken
push, a shallow push can't cause any corruption. Update the document
to reflect that.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The 3.x tree has been out for a while now. The -2.6 repository name
survived the initial release [1], but kernel.org now only lists
'linux.git' (for aegl as well as torvalds) [2].
[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147422
On 2011-05-30 01:47:57 GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> ... yes, that means that my git tree is still called
> "linux-2.6.git" on kernel.org.
[2]: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There may be times when using one of your local repositories as a
reference for a new clone make sense, but the implied version-bump in
the old example isn't one of them. I think a more intuitive example
is multi-user system with a central reference clone, and the new paths
hint at this use case.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are other examples in git-clone.txt demonstrating both '--bare'
and '-l -s'.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the earlier days, we used to spell the name of the system as GIT,
to simulate as if it were typeset with capital G and IT in small
caps. Later we stopped doing so at around 1.6.5 days.
Let's stop doing so throughout the documentation. The name to refer
to the whole system (and the concept it embodies) is "Git"; the
command end-users type is "git". And document this in the coding
guideline.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This change was already done by 0e615b252f (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2
2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new
instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
A repository created with "git clone --single" had its fetch
refspecs set up just like a clone without "--single", leading the
subsequent "git fetch" to slurp all the other branches, defeating
the whole point of specifying "only this branch".
* rt/maint-clone-single:
clone --single: limit the fetch refspec to fetched branch
After running "git clone --single", the resulting repository has the
usual default "+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" wildcard fetch
refspec installed, which means that a subsequent "git fetch" will
end up grabbing all the other branches.
Update the fetch refspec to cover only the singly cloned ref instead
to correct this.
That means:
If "--single" is used without "--branch" or "--mirror", the
fetch refspec covers the branch on which remote's HEAD points to.
If "--single" is used with "--branch", it'll cover only the branch
specified in the "--branch" option.
If "--single" is combined with "--mirror", then it'll cover all
refs of the cloned repository.
If "--single" is used with "--branch" that specifies a tag, then
it'll cover only the ref for this tag.
Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is basically the same as using "file://", but is a
little less subtle for the end user. It also allows relative
paths to be specified.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --local flag is not "treat this like a local
repository", but rather "if we are local, turn on
optimizations". Therefore it does nothing in the case of:
git clone --local file:///path/to/repo
Let's make that more clear in the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Because a tag ref cannot be put to HEAD, HEAD will become detached.
This is consistent with "git checkout <tag>".
This is mostly useful in shallow clone, where it allows you to clone a
tag in addtion to branches.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When --single-branch is given, only one branch, either HEAD or one
specified by --branch, will be fetched. Also only tags that point to
the downloaded history are fetched.
This helps most in shallow clones, where it can reduce the download to
minimum and that is why it is enabled by default when --depth is given.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Clone does all of init, "remote add", fetch, and checkout
without giving the user a chance to intervene and set any
configuration. This patch allows you to set config options
in the newly created repository after the clone, but before
we do any other operations.
In many cases, this is a minor convenience over something
like:
git clone git://...
git config core.whatever true
But in some cases, it can bring extra efficiency by changing
how the fetch or checkout work. For example, setting
line-ending config before the checkout avoids having to
re-checkout all of the contents with the correct line
endings.
It also provides a mechanism for passing information to remote
helpers during a clone; the helpers may read the git config
to influence how they operate.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
--separate-git-dir tells git to create git dir at the specified
location, instead of where it is supposed to be. A .git file that
points to that location will be put in place so that it appears normal
to repo discovery process.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
Since 1.6.5 "git clone" honors the --recursive option to recursively check
out submodules too. As this option can easily be misinterpreted when it is
added to other commands like "git grep", add the new --recurse-submodules
option as an alias for --recursive so the same option can be used for all
commands recursing into submodules.
Signed-off-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Jonathan Tan
SZEDER Gábor
Junio C Hamano
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Todd Zullinger
Stefan Beller
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Brandon Williams
Jeff King
Sebastian Schuberth
Alex Riesen
Albert L. Lash, IV
Øystein Walle
W. Trevor King
Felipe Contreras
Thomas Ackermann
Matthieu Moy
Ralf Thielow
Jens Lehmann