From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746531F619 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726546AbgCLSKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:10:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63553 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726414AbgCLSKQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:10:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0431A4FEFE; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:10:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=0PHAdcE+fww8Vl9N6Y2y8FP/dLM=; b=XuwSTu a6hRZ7s6oTYaoSF+JoJ34yU0F0zaYj4Fld0YqhZL8osq+BW4VBXWMFel2823hIcz f4gV93K0Ys8hIRQN2SGVSA7GStu8/3nZz0I9328+JjTkzODg3VNqzU1Py8QHBM+6 rpwDz1HcFN0QLMFDNQlKS7zi4sDV+lyoyehac= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=LEJulZjtskCEl7jihBRZGOE0TCwSWyg+ r7xMO/d6gP6sT+U3tC1pHaxlWbgevavQt5MgfB+ZJTomM3SoDkX1kDCs2CBLAnfu Yd3UhIsgt9muMd9E7X1qfgcaEqRKmW8CMc8ucTkwq8baEuI7CUKacsRDh39ilng2 1bqPRa+1TdY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03284FEFD; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:10:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7987C4FEFC; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:10:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Jonathan Tan , stolee@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, christian.couder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Question] Is extensions.partialClone defunct? References: <5981c317-4b39-de15-810b-a781aa79189d@gmail.com> <20200312170714.180996-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <20200312175151.GB120942@google.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:10:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200312175151.GB120942@google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:51:51 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B81A61EE-648C-11EA-8E59-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Nieder writes: >> Hmm...besides giving the name of the promisor remote, the >> extensions.partialClone setting is there to prevent old versions of Git >> (that do not know this extension) from manipulating the repo. > > Yes, so the lack of setting is a bug. > > Christian, what would your prefered way be to fix this? Should > extensions.partialclone specify a particular "default" promisor > remote, or should we use a new repository extension for multiple > promisors? It would depend on how well versions of Git that supported one promisor with extensions.partialClone works with a repository initialized with Christian's multi promisors when the extension points at only a single promisor. Is having other/secondary promisors meant merely to be performance thing, or would the repository be broken if these promisors are down because some objects are never available from the "origin" or the primary promisor remote? If the former, using a "default" promisor with extensions.partialClone would be sufficient and be preferred as we do not end up wasting a new extension, but if the latter, we would need to prevent Git that is capable of single-promisor from touching the multi-promisor repository with a new extension.