From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF7B1F910 for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2022 00:40:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="IQidMvyP"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229570AbiKEAkj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 20:40:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50102 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229536AbiKEAki (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2022 20:40:38 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 318842FFEB for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2022 17:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id r2so3398308ilg.8 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:40:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lABu5xdco9AjuuScOvgJS5adWC1lHp0ijHNLrCKdyeg=; b=IQidMvyPvK8HDIt8BaX60PjiFtp8MWRiViZuu+Tp53+D2Bx0ZJ4JnR5j0atxH9Y15N 5FJJlu5HgC2DbCUilJ7hdPGhEEeOSmCmZ5/3u9naEdzqgaBWFzvBdauXunX49ZhqEsfB zfrHSkTJYoUj9FtCck0JqLDhkDP5575EokH37ybty1V2fMIrsuQlRmiYWAOncszSu6ST XOU3J0UJl9uBxrZ9U683rSkH87Kp6dyV/iUmR9B+I8cd/FrsGenKlbeD5LFhuqARRqAQ kJY5fiFUbh1QeilKdllCd9ulYloccShaWi0HZnkztRNCpStgQoLIh11s9qvC5BNdLQ/M Jonw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=lABu5xdco9AjuuScOvgJS5adWC1lHp0ijHNLrCKdyeg=; b=WZXGfQ2MEEtcjZWTuC27ka/WG/Qc59sIubRRK7luf0RDIhzF1p0qGr0OLoHyUU6zLL kQrYkpAp/ObAc/N3Fj4aMTw0WNkj6JynJC4MGhNpu7mqoJWHE2VderiKIzUhdpL/szT2 wUv8HLJGQMxUWAGAuAct18b6A40Qcssr+J+eZFWGNFy4eXV3df6pN3iMfHE5nk8KdMI5 fDGV82Luza/YEuq8x/3gRlo579KDxQgDeMQiLSlCwyPTYIXXWdQ8XCcJowYcraMXN9Cw hZ6r7usLA+PwjGUmvBMwYLBxB9Pl7kDZ1Y9DcQ/vNLJxsVFZtvEmZIoZIC0320Dx4UsS OG3A== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plWZRspjaCQ5479NvD0YBTAANYNhrWY4/c9lUftg95Ibc+0siUR 16V5snwRODVgiDUYG0RBXD5TQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4hw/c9vGj4EkNkdE1/nImA9khwpCy9EGueAa+8Ast537GObab9Bl6TFWgG3reIbzh6SOxKTA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:188d:b0:301:ffc7:c825 with SMTP id o13-20020a056e02188d00b00301ffc7c825mr972213ilu.7.1667608836558; Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y9-20020a056638228900b0037508cc0bc2sm183264jas.12.2022.11.04.17.40.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 20:40:35 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Taylor Blau , Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] receive-pack: only use visible refs for connectivity check Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > Hi, > > this is the second version of my patch series that tries to improve > performance of the connectivity check by only considering preexisting > refs as uninteresting that could actually have been advertised to the > client. This version was delightful to read, and I don't have any concerns with the approach or implementation. I would appreciate another set of reviewer eyes on the topic, but if not, I am comfortable starting to merge this down as-is. Thanks, Taylor