Re: `master` is now `main`

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Anyone else seeing a failed fresh clone?  :-(
>>
>>  $ git clone -o sv git+ssh://git.sv.gnu.org/srv/git/emacs/elpa
>>  Clone in 'elpa' in corso...
>>  remote: Counting objects: 335978, done.
>>  remote: Compressing objects: 100% (94283/94283), done.
>>  remote: Total 335978 (delta 238158), reused 335412 (delta 237677)
>>  Ricezione degli oggetti: 100% (335978/335978), 227.92 MiB | 4.61 MiB/s, 
>> fatto.
>>  Risoluzione dei delta: 100% (238158/238158), fatto.
>>  fatal: non si è ricevuto l'oggetto atteso 
>> 1b04f0fcd58ea0c82e522bd6e49dc08a3c7912ec
>>  fatal: index-pack non riuscito
>>
>> (Grumble, old computers, bad RAM, grumble.)
>
> I believe you need to use this:
>
>     git -c fetch.fsckObjects=false clone .../elpa

I think the fsck failure leads to a different error message, so
I suspect that's not his problem.

I don't know what could be the cause of his problem, but I'll note that
you can do the following:

    git --single-branch -b main git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs/elpa.git

which will download very little info (only the `main` branch) so is more
likely to avoid the problem you're seeing (I think).

Of course, that won't get you all the GNU ELPA packages.  But subsequent

    make packages/[PKGNAME]

should then fetch the corresponding package's info.  So if you're not
interested in downloading all the packages but only a handful of them,
it can be good option.

> The fetch.fsckObjects setting works around a glitch in the ELPA
> repository <https://debbugs.gnu.org/22690>.
> (IMO, we should just bite the bullet and recreate the repository with
> the correct settings, but that's me.)

Actually, the fsck failure is for an object that was in the old `master`
branch (now named `old/master-2020-dec-14`), which is not used any more.
We should purge it from the repository, but I think it's a bit too early
for that.  Alternatively, we could setup another repository where could
keep this branch (maybe along with other old/deprecated branches).

Also if someone is interested in recreating the branch without the fsck
problem, please go ahead.  I don't have the motivation to look into how
to do that (it's probably a small matter of rebasing or something like
that).


        Stefan