On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 09:55:15AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > Is a local clone really much slower these days? Wouldn't it is use > > hard links too? > > By the way the many properties that are preserved might not be worth > > preserving as they could make results depend a lot on the current > > state of the original repo. > > AFAICT from some quick testing it'll hardlink the objects/ dir, so > e.g. you preserve the loose objects. Making the results depend on the > state of the original repo is a feature, but perhaps it should be opt > in. It's very useful to be able to take a repo that's accrued e.g. a > month's worth of refs & loose objects and test that v.s. a fresh > clone. > > But there are other things that ever a hardlink local clone doesn't > preserve which might be worth preserving... Yes. Reflogs are one example. They aren't copied at all as part of a clone, but they impact pruning and repacking. -Peff
