On 23 May 2012, at 20:10, Erik Schnetter wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Ian Hinder ian.hinder@aei.mpg.de wrote:
On 23 May 2012, at 17:40, Bruno C. Mundim wrote:
Hi Beany/Ian:
I wonder if for some reason your new version of Git is honouring the shallow clone option (--depth 1), whereas my old version is not. I'm not sure why we do a shallow clone by default;
People were concerned with the size of the git repos and how slow would be to check them out. So there was a decision towards checking out shallow git repos.
Was this based on actual experience? I find the git repositories to be very fast to check out (and I am in Europe) in comparison to the glacially slow process of checking out a hundred separate SVN repositories one by one.
If I recall correctly, this was more of a safety decision that a benchmarked decision.
OK, in that case I think it is unnecessary, and should be reverted. I don't like shallow clones.
The reasoning went something like "with an anonymous checkout you can't commit anyway, so a shallow checkout suffices". We were not aware of any negative effect of shallow clones.
With an anonymous checkout, you can commit and push. You have to add the correct URL to push to: git push <url>, but you can still push. This is a lot easier than checking out your Cactus tree again in non-anonymous mode.