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-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FBC1F8C4 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 22:17:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232690AbhBEWLx (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 17:11:53 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:51738 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232065AbhBEOiJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 09:38:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 18713 invoked by uid 109); 5 Feb 2021 16:15:46 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:15:46 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 24612 invoked by uid 111); 5 Feb 2021 16:15:45 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:15:45 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 11:15:45 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cloning with remote unborn HEAD Message-ID: References: <20201208013121.677494-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> 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, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:25:57PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan writes: > > > For what it's worth, here's v7 with advertise/allow/ignore and by > > default, advertise. I think that some server operators will have use for > > this feature, and people who want to disable it for whatever reason can > > still do so. The main disadvantage is complexity - the server knob that > > server administrators will need to control (but between a simpler > > allow/ignore knob and a more complicated advertise/allow/ignore knob, I > > think we might as well go for the slightly more complex one) and > > complexity in the code (but now that is constrained to one function and > > a few global variables). > > > > As you can see from the range-diff, not much has changed from v6. > > > > I've also included Junio's suggestion of tightening the promise made by > > the server (when the client says "unborn"). > > This looks reasonable overall, especially with the feature turned on > by default, we'd hopefully get reasonable exposure from the get-go. > > Let's mark the topic to be merged to 'next' soonish, unless people > object. No objection here. I sent a few comments in response to patch 1; the doc fix and the leak are probably worth addressing before it hits next. I couldn't help express my thoughts on the protocol wording, but it may be best to ignore me. ;) Thanks for working on this, Jonathan. I think it's a very useful feature. -Peff