On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 09:57:18 -0400 Jeff Hostetler <g...@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/2017 6:24 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:20:44 +0000 > > Jeff Hostetler <g...@jeffhostetler.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffh...@microsoft.com> > >> > >> 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 non-fetching functionality.
