From: Jonathan Tan <email@example.com> To: Christian Couder <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jeff Hostetler <email@example.com>, Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>, git <email@example.com> Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2018, #02; Tue, 9) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:31:09 -0800 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD0P7kVo2NP4Wq7OaSV4H1+sqHapuzW5AQef+enNS0S5hw@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:56:50 +0100 Christian Couder <email@example.com> wrote: > I am still not very happy with fetch_object() not returning anything. > I wonder what happens when that function is used to fetch from a repo > that cannot provide the requested object. My idea was to save a verification step - the caller of fetch_object() needs to reattempt the object load anyway (which includes a verification that the object exists), so I didn't see the need to have fetch_object() do it too. > Also I think the "extensions.partialclone = <remote>" config option is > not very future proof. If people start using partial clone, it is > likely that at some point they will need their repo to talk to more > than one remote that is partial clone enabled and I don't see how such > a config option can scale in this case. In the case that they want to talk to more than one partial-clone-enabled repo, I think that there still needs to be one "default" remote from which missing objects are fetched. I can think of a few reasons for that - for example, (a) we need to support commands that give a nonexistent-in-repo SHA-1 directly, and (b) existing Git code relies on the ability to fetch an object given only its SHA-1. (a) can be overcome by forbidding that (?) and (b) can be overcome by an overhaul of the object-fetching and object-using code, but I don't think both (a) and (b) will occur anytime soon.
prev parent reply index Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-01-09 23:33 Junio C Hamano 2018-01-10 7:56 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2018-01-10 20:02 ` Junio C Hamano 2018-01-10 16:25 ` Jeff Hostetler 2018-01-10 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano 2018-01-10 22:03 ` Jeff Hostetler 2018-01-18 8:56 ` Christian Couder 2018-01-18 22:31 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
firstname.lastname@example.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many) Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git Newsgroups are available over NNTP: nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git nntp://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git nntp://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git nntp://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/ AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox