New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replace shelling out git in src/git.rs
with usage of git2
crate.
#86
Comments
Note that while this may be better in the long run, the code usually gets more complex and is sometimes harder to write/test. |
@Mark-Simulacrum, If we still want to go ahead and make this change, I can work on it and send a PR. I've already begun making changes locally using git2-rs, and it seems relatively straightforward. Please let me know your thoughts. EDIT: Unfortunately, got stuck with the issue where |
Hm, I think shallow clones might actually be hurting us in the long run as we don't particularly care about disk space and we presumably end up making them deep in many cases anyway while re-pulling, though I'm not certain. It'd be good to figure out how much we're gaining in performance and/or disk space because of shallow clones. |
The original command used to clone effectively becomes irrelevant after the first run because all the git repos are cached so it just pulls new commits after that (which doesn't deepen by default). Shallow clones are a net benefit but aren't too much of a big deal. |
Uhm, there are some issues with swallow clones on GitHub making them more expensive than normal clones. Sure, we're not at that scale, but I think that's something worth considering. |
I'm aware of that issue, but there are many things different about it that I don't think it's very informative for us:
Point 2 is probably the most notable - if there are no changes, there's nothing for github to do. To be honest, I'd be 👍 on normal clones just because they're less exotic and less likely to cause surprises. Other than that its pretty much a wash - disk savings aren't too interesting when just doing a crater run takes about 1TB. |
Hmmm. Just following the conversation, I get the feeling that we're OK with switching to |
@balajisivaraman that sounds great - I'm certainly willing to review and merge if you make a PR :) |
@aidanhs, Thanks for the confirmation! I'll get started on it. :-) |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: