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=-8.5 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 F2CAE1F597 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731546AbeGRRyN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:54:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44]:42622 "EHLO mail-pl0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731362AbeGRRyN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:54:13 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z7-v6so554552plo.9 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:15:22 -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=4F5h9zH7BXA7efsuSRG6Wds6QA9cl111enymDLFy60g=; b=chJmSI1iRBtlWPH6JREbaM+jnT7mGfsCOKKYdJbvNC99fuBhIoBNkxqeg4vKwwlAGn ppAa9wFj29947fopwoisESHbKsQ1KsKN6Yiad0fVln9t4rEoITpcceLyBr2hOhzDXRiq KsqWsqBimZWPFBoiPMCb9/uoTJFKZJm/zzvp+NePzmEAmLV437PaLx1ORF+VSvdNWUak j06V7FreIz2y82uxSxCng2PElXMKcGLVGS2j/JezxRlE7whCmS6jdKYOHLYeeI6644YP NDPX87NueTpt6sh6N/wfnFONwrf766wIWuifdMUiCxOFAly4xXGwATOJkOyKmugNIPTw 0Xog== 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=4F5h9zH7BXA7efsuSRG6Wds6QA9cl111enymDLFy60g=; b=TAGysZ7ulONMo6OTaMv39amZj2zPlGOeSu2Hw9kmdv8zYltkPknxjtxBcit6QH4Q7F YtpvbaZG+QWoyb11vl8syojQ9PfIkaj5JCth97KHfwLAnHT1yTq2lNt1KvxDLo5+HCoK mlwAB8o202JFICtvuDETvnxsQe36LWWd5Nel+jWyykAw61Cy1cC+ANpgipLV6HOmz3mF a1sANJOU3LbNFP2lg8BwLL3ebYlytJbPZm2rM+YREdt8dEsOuGHhsPI3BAgv2ZwUjdye Zf6sIrIDkAe53eAMz9cgw6QlY4ykuosh2E999YlntHgnN+7+o+JrNceKS4N3hNjjkW9X s+IA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGiPkgUYlOHH/03Wjazme+VWSqBJVfeiCLYwn30SvVWGXO+uVZq yMKftLkGPVCUvrxethKY9+bjYA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfNHt03DRWW4dnKSho/4BV2Hi6CgRQS3/OAA/FqxJO/XrPWnxBam58/uLZ/Z3wIw1qL3KVjlQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bc41:: with SMTP id t1-v6mr6825818plz.26.1531934121658; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:ff43:9291:7eda:b712]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o4-v6sm5466882pgq.91.2018.07.18.10.15.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:15:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:15:12 -0700 From: Brandon Williams To: Stefan Beller Cc: Derrick Stolee , git Subject: Re: [RFC] push: add documentation on push v2 Message-ID: <20180718171512.GC17137@google.com> References: <20180717210915.139521-1-bmwill@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 07/18, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:31 AM Derrick Stolee wrote: > > > > On 7/17/2018 7:25 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:09 PM Brandon Williams wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams > > >> --- > > >> > > >> Since introducing protocol v2 and enabling fetch I've been thinking > > >> about what its inverse 'push' would look like. After talking with a > > >> number of people I have a longish list of things that could be done to > > >> improve push and I think I've been able to distill the core features we > > >> want in push v2. > > > It would be nice to know which things you want to improve. > > > > Hopefully we can also get others to chime in with things they don't like > > about the existing protocol. What pain points exist, and what can we do > > to improve at the transport layer before considering new functionality? > > Another thing that I realized last night was the possibility to chunk requests. > The web of today is driven by lots of small http(s) requests. I know our server > team fights with the internal tools all the time because the communication > involved in git-fetch is usually a large http request (large packfile). > So it would be nice to have the possibility of chunking the request. > But I think that can be added as a capability? (Not sure how) Fetch and push requests/responses are already "chunked" when using the http transport. So I'm not sure what you mean by adding a capability because the protocol doesn't care about which transport you're using. This is of course unless you're talking about a different "chunking" from what it means to chunk an http request/response. -- Brandon Williams