On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Jeff King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:55:17PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> +If the 'packfile-uris' feature is advertised, the following argument
>
Jeff King writes:
> I.e., I think the conversation ought to be more like:
>
> Server: I support packfile-uris X, Y, Z.
>
> Client: Great. I'll use URIs X and Z.
>
> Server: OK, here's your pack, minus any objects I know are in X and Z.
> I'll send you the objects from Y as normal.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Do you mean this for when a pack is self-contained and contains all
>> objects reachable from those "tip" commits?
>>
>> What would you do when a pack is not self-contained in that way?
>
> Indeed, it had been a while
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Jeff King wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:55:17PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
+If the 'packfile-uris' feature is advertised, the following argument
+can be included in the client's request as well as the
On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> This is really orthagonal to this series, but wouldn't a better
>> resumption strategy here be to walk the pack we just downloaded, run the
>> equivalent of 'commit-graph write' on it to figure out likely "
On Wed, Apr 24 2019, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff King wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:55:17PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
>>> +If the 'packfile-uris' feature is advertised, the following argument
>>> +can be included in the client's request as well as the potential
>>> +addition
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> This is really orthagonal to this series, but wouldn't a better
> resumption strategy here be to walk the pack we just downloaded, run the
> equivalent of 'commit-graph write' on it to figure out likely "tip"
> commits, and use those in "have" lines to negotia
On Tue, Apr 23 2019, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> The problem I see is that the client doesn't get to vet the list of
>> URIs; it only gets to specify a protocol match. But there are many other
>> reasons it might want to reject a URI: we don't like the protocol, the
>> domain name is on a blacklist (
Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:55:17PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> +If the 'packfile-uris' feature is advertised, the following argument
>> +can be included in the client's request as well as the potential
>> +addition of the 'packfile-uris' section in the server's response a
> The problem I see is that the client doesn't get to vet the list of
> URIs; it only gets to specify a protocol match. But there are many other
> reasons it might want to reject a URI: we don't like the protocol, the
> domain name is on a blacklist (or not on a whitelist), the domain name
> can't
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:55:17PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> +If the 'packfile-uris' feature is advertised, the following argument
> +can be included in the client's request as well as the potential
> +addition of the 'packfile-uris' section in the server's response as
> +explained below.
> +
>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano
---
Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 78
Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt | 28 -
2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/technical/packfile-ur
12 matches
Mail list logo
