Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v7] builtin/clone.c: add --reject-shallow option

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:49:52 +0800

Thanks for your review.

--------------
[email-masked]
>"Li Linchao via GitGitGadget" <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> @@ -1216,6 +1234,10 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  if (filter_options.choice)
>>  warning(_("--filter is ignored in local clones; use file:// instead."));
>>  if (!access(mkpath("%s/shallow", path), F_OK)) {
>> +	if (reject_shallow)
>> +	die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone."));
>> +	else
>> +	warning(_("source repository is shallow."));
>
>Hmph, is it an improvement to warn() when the user does not mind
>cloning a shallow repository?
> 
Uh, the idea to warn comes from previous comments I wrote 25 days ago:

  "and maybe we could warn client in fetch-pack stage, if we don't choose 
   to reject shallow cloning."

then no one response to that point, so I think is ok to apply it.
Now, it seems like a bad idea. I will remove it.

>	$ git clone --depth=3 $URL clone-1
>	$ git clone file://$(pwd)/clone-1 clone-2
>
>would give us clone-2 that is just as functional as clone-1 is, no?
>clone-1 may be missing objects that is needed far into the past, and
>clone-2 would lack the same set of objects as clone-1 does, but a
>user who is happily using clone-1 would be happy with clone-2 the
>same way, no?
>
>> diff --git a/fetch-pack.c b/fetch-pack.c
>> index fb04a76ca263..72b378449a07 100644
>> --- a/fetch-pack.c
>> +++ b/fetch-pack.c
>> @@ -1129,9 +1129,13 @@ static struct ref *do_fetch_pack(struct fetch_pack_args *args,
>>  if (args->deepen)
>>  setup_alternate_shallow(&shallow_lock, &alternate_shallow_file,
>>  NULL);
>> -	else if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs)
>> +	else if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) {
>> +	if (args->remote_shallow)
>> +	die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone."));
>
>Stopping early before calling get_pack() would significantly reduce
>the overhead, which is good.
>
>> +	else
>> +	warning(_("source repository is shallow."));
>
>The same question on the wisdom of warning here. 
>
>> @@ -1498,10 +1502,14 @@ static void receive_shallow_info(struct fetch_pack_args *args,
>>  * rejected (unless --update-shallow is set); do the same.
>>  */
>>  prepare_shallow_info(si, shallows);
>> -	if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs)
>> +	if (si->nr_ours || si->nr_theirs) {
>> +	if (args->remote_shallow)
>> +	die(_("source repository is shallow, reject to clone."));
>> +	else
>> +	warning(_("source repository is shallow."));
>
>OK, so, this is the equivalent of the above for protocol-v2?  The
>same comments apply, then. 

Yes, this is for protocol v2.
>
>> diff --git a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> index 428b0aac93fa..2863b8b28d44 100755
>> --- a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME=main
>>  export GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_INITIAL_BRANCH_NAME
>> 
>>  . ./test-lib.sh
>> +. "$TEST_DIRECTORY"/lib-httpd.sh
>> +start_httpd
>> 
>>  test_expect_success 'setup' '
>> 
>> @@ -45,6 +47,51 @@ test_expect_success 'disallows --bare with --separate-git-dir' '
>> 
>>  '
>> 
>> +test_expect_success 'fail to clone http shallow repository' '
>
>s/fail to clone/reject cloning/, perhaps. 

Ok, will do.
>
>> +test_expect_success 'clone shallow repository with --no-reject-shallow' '
>> +	rm -rf shallow-repo &&
>> +	git clone --depth=1 --no-local parent shallow-repo &&
>> +	git clone --no-reject-shallow --no-local shallow-repo clone-repo
>
>OK.  Also without "--no-reject-shallow" option, the command would
>successfully clone from the shallow-repo, I presume? 

Yes, exactly.
>
>The changes look more-or-less good to me, except for the "warning()"
>bit, which I do not think is a good idea. 

I will remove the unnecessary warning() part.

Thanks!