Planned change to git clone logic

@allanrenucci How’s this approach working out for you? Any weird gotchas you’ve noticed?

@bradrydzewski Thanks for taking the time to outline this. I’m wary of “rolling my own” approach for something so critical. Just wondering if you’d consider this to be a feature that’s still far-out in terms of landing in a release? Or something we might see in the coming weeks/months?

@geekdave I had issues with git clone (taking forever) and git merge (failing, asking for git username and email) in the approach I described above. Our current solution that seems to be working so far is:

    image: plugins/git
    # We clone submodules ourselves in ci-clone
    recursive: false

  # We add a custom clone step to workaround a bug with GitHub merge ref
    image: plugins/git
      - ./ci-clone

And ci-clone defined as:

#!/usr/bin/env sh
set -eux

# if build is PR rebase on top of target branch
if [ "$DRONE_BUILD_EVENT" = "pull_request" ]; then
  git config ""
  git config "Some Name"

git submodule update --init --recursive

I had issues with git clone (taking forever) and git merge (failing, asking for git username and email) in the approach I described above.

This could indicate you are not generating the netrc file which is used for automatic authentication. See

Also looking at your example, it would only work with intra-repository pull requests, since you would need to use the merge ref if the pull request is coming from a fork.

Should master be rebasing on the branch’s commit?

I was wondering if that could create unexpected issues / not the same result when the branch is actually merged into master later.

I started building a proof of concept of the new pull request logic here:

The implementation has some important properties:

  • uses the head ref for pull requests and manually performs the merge
  • guarantees the correct pull request sha and will fail when encountering merge conflicts
  • preserves the branch and sha and avoids a detached HEAD state (supporting tools that use git rev-parse HEAD)

There are some limitations with the implementation

  • pull requests tested with github only; ref logic in place for gitlab, gitea, gogs and bitbucket
  • does not yet work with github deployment events
  • does not yet support skip verify
  • does not yet support non-empty directories (important if caching .git directory)
  • does not support submodules (this is not planned, cloning submodules should instead be handled as a step in your pipeline)

There is solid unit testing in place and I think this provides a good base that we can build upon. If this is something you would like to help accelerate, please consider donating a few hours of time to help test and provide feedback and ways to improve.

You can use this plugin today for non-critical projects with the following syntax:

    image: plugins/git:next

pipeline: ...

Glad to be a guinea pig, @bradrydzewski! I fired up this new image in my clone phase, and got this error right out-of-the gate on the /pr job (/push job ran normally):

chmod: 600: No such file or directory
Initialized empty Git repository in /drone/src/
+ git fetch origin +refs/heads/master:
 * branch            master     -> FETCH_HEAD
 * [new branch]      master     -> origin/master
+ git checkout master
Branch master set up to track remote branch master from origin.
Already on 'master'
+ git fetch origin pull/28/head:
 * branch            refs/pull/28/head -> FETCH_HEAD
+ git rebase 38482f303c72888a96d50338a5d8b466db9c097d
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...

*** Please tell me who you are.


  git config --global ""
  git config --global "Your Name"

to set your account's default identity.
Omit --global to set the identity only in this repository.

fatal: unable to auto-detect email address (got 'root@f8500a73a847.(none)')

Here’s my drone.yml:

    image: plugins/git:next
    image: alpine
      - echo "This is a test to make sure Drone is running jobs."

I added a default email and name (via environment variable) which should satisfy that github prompt if it appears again. A new image is now available. Note that I didn’t have a test PR to reproduce the prompt, so this is untested, but according to git docs it should work.


Thanks - I’ll try this. Since I already have the :next version installed on several agent machines, is there an easy way to force the upgrade without manually removing that image from each machine?

is there an easy way to force the upgrade

yes, with the following attribute:

    image: plugins/git:next
+   pull: true

First of all, big thanks for this. Outdated merge heads from Github started to pop up more and more in our deployment.

We now started using this in a few repo. First executions look good, and we are happy that this is hash based now.

There was one case though that may be of interest: in one of our long running branches the rebase failed with a conflict, while a manual merge of master to this branch succeeded without conflict. Retrying the build after this merge, the rebase succeeded as nothing left to rebase really.

I’m thinking that git rebase <hash> is perhaps more fragile than git reset --hard <hash> followed by a git merge master. But I’m sure you have reasons why it’s a rebase and not a merge.

Thanks for your work!

1 Like

not really, it was just the first thing that passed unit tests :slight_smile:

The primary goal was was to preserve the hash and not create a new merge commit or create a detached head state. If the unit tests pass without modification with reset --hard I am open to adjusting. Thanks for testing, and for the feedback!

Just wanted to verify that we’ll be able to continue to pull the specific branch/commit without doing any of the auto-rebasing stuff. In our case, the extra magic hurts us more than it helps.

@gtaylor I recommend either testing the shell script locally, or maybe even testing with one of your repositories if possible. If we identify issues over the next few weeks, it will give us time to fix before this becomes the default in 0.9

Link to script

With those criteria I couldn’t come up with an alternative. My original proposal creates both a detached head (since we don’t know the source branch) and a merge commit. So I stick with what’s there already. Thanks.

It’s very minimal feedback Brad, but “next” is not picking up the fact we’re pulling from GitLab and changing the ref path. (Drone : 0.8.2). I assume that’s because the $DRONE_COMMIT_REF isn’t being evaluated correctly - but I’m not sure how to make that obvious and get that information for you. Let me know if I can be of any help.

Update: Here’s what I get from my build (and I don’t know why it doesn’t pick it up in “next”)


Update: Seems it’s down to the version of /bin/sh. I’ve submitted a PR with a workaround.

I tried using git:next and it seems that cd to $DRONE_WORKSPACE fails since the directory does not exist.
On the other hand, it seems that code in master branch creates the workspace directory if it does not exist.
It would be helpful if you could add the same procedure (create the workspace directory) to next branch.

Here is a data point - the GitHub refspecs have been particularly flaky today, meaning that Drone was giving very confusing errors for hours. I ended up switching that repo to plugins/git:next, and the problems disappeared immediately. We’re going to merge it into master, as I don’t see any regression or bug in that version :slight_smile:

That’s great to here. I’d like to also confirm that I have no issues since I switched to :next few months ago.

We’ve been using it and it has been great. I would love to see it merged because it is a pain to have to add it. When I forget it we have issues on new projects. :smiley: