Well, back to a full clone. Thanks for the "--unshallow" argument, but
so
far it has failed twice. I suspect that it's my urtwn interface is bad.
I'll swap it out tomorrow and see it that fixes it.
I am a bit surprised at how little more space the full clone takes. I was
really expecting it to be much worse. Of course, it will only grow... as
will the sources, themselves.
Warner, I suggest an immediate update to your mini-git primer. It was
already a bit out of date, but this fix is more urgent with RC on the
horizon. In particular, the "Repositories" at least look old to me.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:55 AM Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 12:10, Helge Oldach <freebsd at oldach.net>
wrote:
> >
> > A shallow tree is about 1.6G. If you want to patch source (say, from
> > a SA or EN) you certainly also need space for an object tree which is
> > about 4.5G. The total is >6G.
> >
> > I'd say relative to the total required to build, the 1.1G
"savings" from
> > using a shallow versus a full tree (which is about 2.7G) isn't
really
> > worth the effort. Plus, you get the a few benefits like full commit
> > history including comments.
>
> Indeed, this is a good point. We can update docs to state:
>
> At present a full clone is required to include the commit count in
> uname. An existing shallow clone can be converted into a full clone by
> running
>
> % git fetch --unshallow
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"
>