5 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a git clone involve downloading the project's entire git history as well as $CURRENT_VERSION? That seems a little excessive.

nilved 11y ago
You can use `--depth=1` to only download one revision, and `--branch` to specify an alternate branch or tag.
- XorNot 11y ago
  As far as I know though you can't grab a specific revision this way (I'd love to be shown otherwise) - which is an issue when setting up dockerfiles since you want to bake the sha hash which works into the file.
akshaykarthik 11y ago
git clone --depth=1 will get you just $CURRENT_VERSION
hueving 11y ago
By default, yes. But you can use the --depth option to limit it to a clone of the most recent state.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tjbiddle 11y ago
While I disagree with the authors sentiment as a whole; this issue could be solved by using a shallow clone.
abritinthebay 11y ago
Ironically git actually supports TAR for this exact thing: git archive exports tar files. You can do a low depth to minimize that if you want (--depth=1 or something like that if I remember correctly). You could just rm -rf the root .git directory after but that is a download bloat issue. That said this should work: git clone --depth=1 --branch=master git://myrepo && rm -rf myrepo/.git` but.. yeah. Not really great.
dajohnson89 11y ago
And what if you find a bug, and want to regress to a previous version? What is so cumbersome about downloading a project's history?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Well, some projects have been around for a while. "All the history" can be a LOT of history.
  - eru 11y ago
    Actually, even for the Linux kernel, it's only a few hundred megabyte.
    - detaro 11y ago
      "Only" a few hundred megabyte is "really a lot" in many situations.
    - Freaky 11y ago
      My bare Linux repository comes to 1.2GB. A git gc run got it down to 1.1GB.
      - eru 11y ago
        Oh, true. I just checked. I think I mixed up two numbers.
ufo 11y ago
The article suggests that this is not a big deal anymore now that computers have more storage and networks have more bandwidth.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  There are still a lot of networks that don't have enough bandwidth to make git trivial. Most home networks, it's going to turn a 5-second download into 60 seconds or more. Some networks, it's going to turn a 1-minute download into a half an hour.
MBlume 11y ago
Sure, but on the other hand, downloading a tarball for every minor release means you're redownloading a lot of code. Depending on how much churn there is, you may save bandwidth in the long run by keeping a clone and updating as you go.

nilved 11y ago

You can use `--depth=1` to only download one revision, and `--branch` to specify an alternate branch or tag.

XorNot 11y ago
As far as I know though you can't grab a specific revision this way (I'd love to be shown otherwise) - which is an issue when setting up dockerfiles since you want to bake the sha hash which works into the file.

akshaykarthik 11y ago

git clone --depth=1 will get you just $CURRENT_VERSION

hueving 11y ago

By default, yes. But you can use the --depth option to limit it to a clone of the most recent state.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tjbiddle 11y ago

While I disagree with the authors sentiment as a whole; this issue could be solved by using a shallow clone.

abritinthebay 11y ago

Ironically git actually supports TAR for this exact thing: git archive exports tar files. You can do a low depth to minimize that if you want (--depth=1 or something like that if I remember correctly). You could just rm -rf the root .git directory after but that is a download bloat issue. That said this should work: git clone --depth=1 --branch=master git://myrepo && rm -rf myrepo/.git` but.. yeah. Not really great.

dajohnson89 11y ago

And what if you find a bug, and want to regress to a previous version? What is so cumbersome about downloading a project's history?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 11y ago
Well, some projects have been around for a while. "All the history" can be a LOT of history.
- eru 11y ago
  Actually, even for the Linux kernel, it's only a few hundred megabyte.
  - detaro 11y ago
    "Only" a few hundred megabyte is "really a lot" in many situations.
  - Freaky 11y ago
    My bare Linux repository comes to 1.2GB. A git gc run got it down to 1.1GB.
    - eru 11y ago
      Oh, true. I just checked. I think I mixed up two numbers.

ufo 11y ago

The article suggests that this is not a big deal anymore now that computers have more storage and networks have more bandwidth.

lukeschlather 11y ago
There are still a lot of networks that don't have enough bandwidth to make git trivial. Most home networks, it's going to turn a 5-second download into 60 seconds or more. Some networks, it's going to turn a 1-minute download into a half an hour.

MBlume 11y ago

Sure, but on the other hand, downloading a tarball for every minor release means you're redownloading a lot of code. Depending on how much churn there is, you may save bandwidth in the long run by keeping a clone and updating as you go.