On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:14:11PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > That seems like the best we can do without the protocol change. And even > > if we adjust the protocol, we need some fallback behavior for existing > > v2 servers, so this is worth doing. > > Are people actually doing this (i.e. cloning from or pushing to a > shallow repo)? I added this with the intention that a big shallow repo > (e.g. one year long history) is served as the common source to reduce > server loads and everything, while the full/big repo is available but > rarely needed. I never saw anyone complain about it (so, likely not > using it).
I don't think I've ever seen anybody serve fetches out of a shallow clone in practice (I don't think we ever seriously considered them at GitHub, but given their general incompatibility with reachability bitmaps, I suspect it would cause more performance problems than it solves). I've always imagined people do it for one-offs. E.g., they have a shallow clone, and fetch out of that to a temporary copy. That may be less useful these days with the advent of separate worktrees. -Peff
