-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
ref/ci: --fetch-depth
#364
Conversation
- follow-up to iterative/cml#1246 - follow-up to iterative/cml#1243
Link Check ReportThere were no links to check! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why recommend cml ci --fetch-depth=0
though?
$ cml ci | ||
$ cml ci --fetch-depth=0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Product Q: Should it be the default value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no default value for this option, Imagine that 95% of the use cases will be --fetch-depth=0
or the previous alias for this --unshallow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
--fetch-depth=0
is slow & space-consuming so can't be the default. Also, we can't use --fetch-depth=1 imitating GHA because that would truncate unshallow repos.
Safest is to have undefined
(unset) default, i.e. do-nothing, but document --fetch-depth=0
as the most likely use case.
Link Check ReportThere were no links to check! |
--fetch-depth
cml#1246ci --fetch-depth
, deprecateci --unshallow
cml#1233