On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 12:32 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I'll queue these for now, but I doubt the wisdom of this series, > given that the ship has already sailed long time ago. > > Currently, no third-party implementation of a receiving end can > accept thin push, because "thin push" is not a capability that needs > to be checked by the current clients. People will have to wait > until the clients with 2/2 patch are widely deployed before starting > to use such a receiving end that is incapable of "thin push". > > Wouldn't the world be a better place if instead they used that time > waiting to help such a third-party receiving end to implement "thin > push" support? >
Support in the code isn't always enough. The particular case that brought this on is one where the index-pack implementation can deal with thin packs just fine. This particular service takes the pack which the client sent and does post-processing on it to store it elsewhere. During the receive-pack equivalent, there is no git object db that it can query for the missing base objects. I realise this is pretty a unusual situation. Cheers, cmn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
