Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes: > Duy Nguyen <[email protected]> writes: > >> I know this is a corner case, but because it has a valid use case, >> maybe we should do something about it. Immediate reaction is to add an >> option to send no "have"s. But maybe you guys have better ideas. > > This and similar corner cases were discussed in very early days of > Git. > > One interesting idea floated back then but was not pursued was to > dig and send have's sparsely and then back up. Instead of digging > and sending _all_ commits in a contiguous history, after sending the > tip, you skip the commits from the history before sending the next > one, and progressively make the skipping larger (e.g. Fibonacci, or > exponential). You need to remember what you sent and for each of > what you sent its topologically-oldest descendant you sent earlier > that you heard the other side does not have. > > Then, when you get an Ack, you know a stretch of history between a > commit that is known to be common (i.e. the one you heard an Ack > just now) and its descendant that is known only to you (i.e. the > topologically-oldest one you remember that you did send and they > didn't say is common). At that point, you and the other end can > bisect that range.
If anybody is interested, here is a good place to start: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/96149/focus=102485 [Cc'ed Stefan as I think he was collecting possible enhancement to put in the protocol v2]. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
