From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIMWL_WL_MED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29DF1F597 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:23:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967196AbeFSTXe (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:23:34 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f201.google.com ([74.125.82.201]:36670 "EHLO mail-ot0-f201.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966263AbeFSTXe (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:23:34 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f201.google.com with SMTP id z25-v6so428371otk.3 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:date:in-reply-to:message-id:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=DdM98LuccinOfV/LNetqtm+JBZztfby8uObQSV7esB8=; b=ru336Jh0KKUvcDPcPgSoPdpHzWP2M0y8kaJ2eVdkyKjazKcN05suuy8ENh8vKMcB36 Ge+1r4w6j40VsjCCOo4dG1gdOzyC2RytdIlrlvS9T0SC/aaAt1OSzxwep8O5pSwS47jW YqFh9S5LhFEGMe3nNSfej8xP/A5vjGAh8H2aXaEdpH7nGtzQMBTBVSPcb6r9je5NGNuF 8nUdie4oTwJumOjhK7ExW9QVgxsau/hp835gXW1CvpLIXkLAyZ2C6bkxlrBKrbxX5civ 7rV/kEzoIfsmqD8sQlpQQiRnZdUdZzQK9g4dxoaN9AkeoAX/ynVf0HXJdyNmqwGPy73k r47Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:message-id :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=DdM98LuccinOfV/LNetqtm+JBZztfby8uObQSV7esB8=; b=IiivcH9JWQcFZAI3Ova5ebUUZTPjeDm5hr2pXlzsh9EXpxpaqeJP5deoxvQx3DghyF R1Ba0Woaw2RCUL2S1QYxgcXlmmkyvzPXdGI2pqtaXlRowkGmv6ijNw9SZcXC+6ghWbJX 9fsPstjOlo9rBzcjyMcCKUGV5T/5k5SJinIXLtMilfwr6O+/dsJFm931vbT/1ji/B4vD lS+8ESUbkESh3wWRRMwNqnGW0FzqXlh1d9T5I8yKhU6CX+gsVObl+cpm5lpwR4KVjtPT g8n3No/TatosHfcved2hSR3chfbB8a9+d9t66vlKe7bVQnk0ZTTaE4mEy+xcaYDhEvt1 KuZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3i0K+iuSX+FUAssweD4FZTa/N1EzKTqhgdsroyutzYnwTtp0L/ yMvCGv2JZISmIX2ai2bNGeqQjtxsreDZTr2GJ/xh X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJy5ibnnC5d/gI17TowH6NLgBFADqUwfO/6UezmGfg04QOU4UY4/4T0gZY4wn9Cp3Xqqp/33h7lvRIpdLmvqF1m MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5b36:: with SMTP id x51-v6mr9137326oth.118.1529436213437; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:23:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180619173250.GA199585@google.com> Message-Id: <20180619192330.83971-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> References: <20180619173250.GA199585@google.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.18.0.rc2.347.g0da03f3a46.dirty Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] ref-in-want From: Jonathan Tan To: bmwill@google.com Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org [snip] > > in which we have rarely-updated branches that we still want to fetch > > (e.g. an annotated tag when we fetch refs/tags/* or a Gerrit > > refs/changes/* branch), having the ref advertisement first means that we > > can omit them from our "want" or "want-ref" list. But not having them > > means that we send "want-ref refs/tags/*" to the server, and during > > negotiation inform the server of our master branch (A), and since the > > server knows of a common ancestor of all our wants (A, B, C), it will > > terminate the negotiation and send the objects specific to branches B > > and C even though it didn't need to. > > > > So maybe we still need to keep the ls-refs step around, and thus, this > > design of only accepting exact refs is perhaps good enough for now. > > I think that taking a smaller step first it probably better. This is > something that we've done in the past with the shallow features and > later capabilities were added to add different ways to request shallow > fetches. I think we're agreeing that the smaller step first is better. > That being said, if we find that this feature doesn't work as-is and > needs the extra complexity of patterns from the start then they should > be added. I agree (although I would be OK too if we decide to do the small exact-name step now and then the pattern step later guarded by a capability, as long as the project understood that multiple support levels would then exist in the wild). > But it doesn't seem like there's a concrete reason at the > moment. I agree. I thought I had a reason, but not after thinking through the ideas I explained in [1]. [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180615190458.147775-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/