Re: Proposal: object negotiation for partial clones

[Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>]

> > On 2019/05/07, at 11:34, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > To get an enumeration of available objects, don't you need to use only
> > "blob:none"? Combining filters (once that's implemented) will get all
> > objects only up to a certain depth.
> >
> > Combining "tree:<n>" and "blob:none" would allow us to reduce the number
> > of trees transmitted, but I would imagine that the savings would be
> > significant only for very large repositories. Do you have a specific use
> > case in mind that isn't solved by "blob:none"?
> 
> I am interested in supporting large repositories. The savings seem to be larger than one may expect. I tried the following command on two huge repos to find out how much it costs to fetch “blob:none” for a single commit:
> 
> $ git rev-list --objects --filter=blob:none HEAD: | xargs -n 2 bash -c 'git cat-file -s $1' | awk '{ total += $1; print total }'
> 
> Note the “:” after HEAD - this limits it to the current commit.
> 
> And the results were:
>  - Linux: 2 684 054 bytes
>  - Chromium: > 16 139 570 bytes (then I got tired of waiting for it to finish)

Thanks for the numbers. Let me think about it some more, but I'm still
reluctant to introduce multiple filter support in the protocol and the
implementation for the following reasons:

- For large projects like Linux and Chromium, it may be reasonable to
  expect that an infrequent checkout would result in a few-megabyte
  download.
- (After some in-office discussion) It may be possible to mitigate much
  of that by sending root trees that we have as "have" (e.g. by
  consulting the reflog), and that wouldn't need any protocol change.
- Supporting any combination of filter means that we have more to
  implement and test, especially if we want to support more filters in
  the future. In particular, the different filters (e.g. blob, tree)
  have different code paths now in Git. One way to solve it would be to
  combine everything into one monolith, but I would like to avoid it if
  possible (after having to deal with revision walking a few times...)