Isn’t that part of the problem described in the article? A shallow clone? Github has trouble with exactly that.
Maybe it’s time the community stepped in an provided alternative solutions to nixpkgs. We can talk about them here, but in the end somebody has to implement them.
no shallow is --shallow. the difference is --depth refers to the history (as reported by, e.g. git log), whereas shallow will only check out the root of the repository and any paths explicitly specified. i guess the article is describing some sort of problem with users who convert their shallow repository to a regular full repo. i wouldn’t know a lot about that.
Isn’t that part of the problem described in the article? A shallow clone? Github has trouble with exactly that.
Maybe it’s time the community stepped in an provided alternative solutions to nixpkgs. We can talk about them here, but in the end somebody has to implement them.
no shallow is
--shallow. the difference is--depthrefers to the history (as reported by, e.g.git log), whereas shallow will only check out the root of the repository and any paths explicitly specified. i guess the article is describing some sort of problem with users who convert their shallow repository to a regular full repo. i wouldn’t know a lot about that.