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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 A41DB1F463 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 14:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726501AbfLZOau (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Dec 2019 09:30:50 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:45070 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726074AbfLZOau (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Dec 2019 09:30:50 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id l12so22394388qtq.12 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 06:30:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hoL/yYewwGN845mWYYxFNbtMDxMKizAibkT5uE3blmU=; b=iOE90CulmPCFCgIKi6y4G4+xZyFySs/goqDQVsth6019xKnU2HnT2f+goYhUFGTgy3 pIflBwFv1XLnpzVrF7TCMrLGZR9LMAMS5MAlhqAuFO/wcfun1Uu7FBAun1BGK27iAgm2 Qkk0uR7u7JI3lbzXXCAC8S1cCmGHjp8wL9ilS8Mq8Vx/Iu+AdByTm2sQNE03eRwLOeu8 WJbDpHtOSoRwgpLz+uMkk3E9HLYq7GqYS38hHQZwIPaWLUjv8D8dfjKg4izezR5/8bou KqgNYVFghtsbePGUsUJ+Zs5vUDYt+dFknTcTGlwNRFlpwe9DoiFqXGYpFc3cIRHVEbrU pGBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hoL/yYewwGN845mWYYxFNbtMDxMKizAibkT5uE3blmU=; b=hi2y4IGVwpJHcpj5HOfj/6xxdThKcnNu3biHmHjrikeZPaDi0ypmwRnR0bPVO4n382 ik3D8QSeFuBzKagyujhUCR83Y8okTSomQr6J7NdCPGbslCh2bzE3M/OswHq1F3lJ+8v+ coT726ovyoVS0IglrOs+VrBXhPcYKCKRC7Yt8a3+IGLXQOznEwe9fd8rWoQDYAjY3ElU bro0wcQ1hr+YtDI8dg4uaPHJYFwS+d+V/+So7PdOsTIiLDK0hyCfKMJGuvVYEHWX8eJV mv/CEgm3PSwwl/AUv3sjO2SwPADae4NHpNB42b3iYQyRCZ1o0e8E/QFxvXpofxO7mfht 7qvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWrXl5pk5AW92sP8D+GDwMvKYdrVPu4DqNbZjp4WLlO1rGFaZp4 fqSBEDYyC8xesccDufJCBgaZG2dH X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPn0HIjqf1NkRM3k6kRHD+fK7Qap/8TnK6oOOScdL4aji+fiCWH2nnI8cguOdoSsgwbpe95w== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:21ad:: with SMTP id 42mr34558208qty.109.1577370649381; Thu, 26 Dec 2019 06:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4898:6808:13e:d596:b1c5:69e0:b2e5? ([2001:4898:a800:1012:86ca:b1c5:69e0:b2e5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g21sm8671930qkl.116.2019.12.26.06.30.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Dec 2019 06:30:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Enable protocol v2 by default To: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jonathan Tan , Jeff King , Jeff Hostetler References: <20191224005816.GC38316@google.com> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <0a4f064b-8260-1662-2ead-b2e2c930d706@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 09:30:47 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:72.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/72.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191224005816.GC38316@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 12/23/2019 7:58 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > The Git users at $DAYJOB have been using protocol v2 as a default for > ~1.5 years now and others have been also reporting good experiences > with it, so it seems like a good time to propose bumping the default > version. It produces a significant performance improvement when > fetching from repositories with many refs, such as > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src. The benefits of protocol v2 are very clear, assuming the server supports it. And I'm pretty sure there is no downside, as a v0 server continues responding to the v2 request without any extra round trips to agree on protocol. > This only affects the client, not the server. (The server already > defaults to supporting protocol v2.) > > This could go in 2.25 (most of the "next" population is likely already > using protocol.version=2, so the -rc period would be one of the better > ways to expand the user population using this) or could cook in "next" > for a cycle. Either is fine by me. I have no firm opinion on when this lands. The code change is much simpler than I would have thought, and perhaps we had enough testing of the protocol by experts. This series looks good to me. Thanks, -Stolee