Hi,
Matthew DeVore wrote:
> On 2019/05/09, at 11:00, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> - Supporting any combination of filter means that we have more to
>> implement and test, especially if we want to support more filters in
>> the future. In particular, the different filters (e.g. blob, tree)
>> have d
> On 2019/05/09, at 11:00, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> Thanks for the numbers. Let me think about it some more, but I'm still
> reluctant to introduce multiple filter support in the protocol and the
> implementation for the following reasons:
Correction to the original command - I was tweaking it
> > On 2019/05/07, at 11:34, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> >
> > To get an enumeration of available objects, don't you need to use only
> > "blob:none"? Combining filters (once that's implemented) will get all
> > objects only up to a certain depth.
> >
> > Combining "tree:" and "blob:none" would allow us
> On 2019/05/07, at 11:34, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> To get an enumeration of available objects, don't you need to use only
> "blob:none"? Combining filters (once that's implemented) will get all
> objects only up to a certain depth.
>
> Combining "tree:" and "blob:none" would allow us to reduc
> > My main question is: we can get the same list of objects (in the form of
> > tree objects) if we fetch with "blob:none" filter. Admittedly, we will
> > get extra data (file names, etc.) - if the extra bandwidth saving is
> > necessary, this should be called out. (And some of the savings will be
Matthew DeVore wrote:
> On 2019/05/06, at 12:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Ah, interesting. When this was discussed before, the proposal has been
>> that the client can say "have" anyway. They don't have the commit and
>> all referenced objects, but they have the commit and a *promise* that
>>
> On 2019/05/06, at 12:46, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> Matthew DeVore wrote:
>
>>> I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
>>> enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
>>> partial clone. I'd like to ref
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:28 PM Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> > I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
> > enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
> > partial clone. I'd like to refine and get some validation of my
> > approach before I start
Hi,
Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Matthew DeVore wrote:
>> I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
>> enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
>> partial clone. I'd like to refine and get some validation of my
>> approach before I start to write
> I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
> enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
> partial clone. I'd like to refine and get some validation of my
> approach before I start to write any code, so I've written a proposal
> for anyone int
Hi,
Matthew DeVore wrote:
> I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
> enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
> partial clone. I'd like to refine and get some validation of my
> approach before I start to write any code, so I've written
Hello,
I'm considering implementing a feature in the Git protocol which would
enable efficient and accurate object negotiation when the client is a
partial clone. I'd like to refine and get some validation of my
approach before I start to write any code, so I've written a proposal
for anyone inter
12 matches
Mail list logo
