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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIMWL_WL_MED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 545BE1F403 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751165AbeFSXOI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:14:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f66.google.com ([209.85.160.66]:34544 "EHLO mail-pl0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbeFSXOH (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:14:07 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f66.google.com with SMTP id g20-v6so659319plq.1 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:14:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=F4Y94e7JQ5nreqv372zBQwHprnd7sv5aeFP3A2yhTLU=; b=XwVcbJuhqtjLYxQHxix/r7JIrRPNvAI5aKKPqtnkar0S2kVInOuvZzMRpgq+Nv1rWq m+eujdcNf9qGvf1kOW0v4XHgjAHrCiAon+1uKXJzMmB1+l+SoBb3e/tGyh34Hs6bkEGg cvy6iPxxBgZMf1ldCkQ7tzz2oQ9qh17QpAGCVhuo3CSvddPZHbfjdZrlId+N+P/d3hyR KNr/JUB9h2u9AC0CIMSPi6A1ue/alvRf485btrVuxEUHfdtCC9zaoNUhkxRCTLE1JTx3 rx2Q261VorOMVfCds7D6rCGGhPqxPHbAlVAccC66L/0JW9s0zSmACmTLDVQkfxkrioG7 tHNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=F4Y94e7JQ5nreqv372zBQwHprnd7sv5aeFP3A2yhTLU=; b=tT88QdDUKrFAiFwlAcapLjxcPeQOZ+Xe4SpKzrMNazgKNdfIw6oatei+TSZb/CpBxw 34WDS5gEs3f5fzpS+pjwwk4AVqHvI4EwKAh/k/nVl9POoqTDOuEC13wSOXKgspG09Mkb KpP1mSqJEOwr+7jaThe2KvbAI5C7UoX4GwnIkpVH0zFibKg0yZtZrTgdKHhYqzqbJ03K 0QuCwrVMtrMPgM5oCISM4GoqFfLECE8Je7M+6WIhTwQ8dSDRISU0MLVrhLO1mPE92l0j j1FFUi2Eykwdc/5WBbB3KRazQoVQm51aNdHbvrqWkVb4+rSqc7U1twxtAhpq/P3mEo7H Jelw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3Yij/Of+cKiDZmcL6Ez+A8tDR0DVMzGH5p4uoWDhcO3ctKQRKm DoQsUZoqHi71P0baiqs/V3AUsg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKh6G99TE1VGXBMfbvr5H2U6IDjNHj3tYQ7UU4clGKyCdeN86gHyrjAecsrQ/me5mHNB7EQYA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:294a:: with SMTP id g68-v6mr21443770plb.58.1529450046499; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:ff43:9291:7eda:b712]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g80-v6sm1015169pfd.21.2018.06.19.16.14.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:14:04 -0700 From: Brandon Williams To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] upload-pack: implement ref-in-want Message-ID: <20180619231404.GA232723@google.com> References: <20180605175144.4225-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180613213925.10560-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180613213925.10560-3-bmwill@google.com> <20180619185033.GC199585@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 06/19, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > > > I also think that we should keep this first implementation of > > ref-in-want simple and *not* include patterns, even if that's what we > > may want someday down the road. Adding a new capability in the future > > for support of such patterns would be relatively simple and easy. > > I am all for many-small-steps over a single-giant-step approach. > > > The > > reason why I don't think we should add pattern support just yet is due > > to a request for "want-ref refs/tags/*" or a like request resulting in a > > larger than expected packfile every time "fetch --tags" is run. The > > issue being that in a fetch request "refs/tags/*" is too broad of a > > request and could be requesting 100s of tags when all we really wanted > > was to get the one or two new tags which are present on the remote > > (because we already have all the other tags present locally). > > I do not quite get this. Why does it have to result in a large > packfile? Doesn't the requester of refs/tags/* still show what it > has via "have" exchange? Sorry Jonathan Tan said it much clearer here: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180615190458.147775-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ -- Brandon Williams