I recall that this became a big problem for the Homebrew project in terms of load on the repo, to the extent that Github asked them not to recommend/default-enable shallow clones for their users: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/15497#issuecomment-1...
replyThis is likely to be lower traffic, and the history should (?) scale only linearly with new data, so likely not the worst thing. But it's something to be cognizant of when using SCM software in unexpected ways!
How would shallow clone be more stressful for GitHub than a regular clone?
replyShallow clones (and the resulting lack of shared history data) break many assumptions that packfile optimisations rely on.
replyThis makes more sense. I still wonder if the author isn't just effectively recreating Apache Iceberg manually here.
replyAre they paying for the repo space, I wonder?
replysomeones paying to keep name dropping Iceberg(tm)
reply