From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8AF20951 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751088AbdCQOPc (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:15:32 -0400 Received: from siwi.pair.com ([209.68.5.199]:18729 "EHLO siwi.pair.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbdCQOOc (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:14:32 -0400 Received: from [10.160.98.126] (unknown [167.220.148.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by siwi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B15C084642; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:13:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch To: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org References: <1488999039-37631-1-git-send-email-git@jeffhostetler.com> <9ef37430-17be-dfc2-bca5-e4e33bc68df8@google.com> <7ce6e14f-b2b1-19f3-916a-9ed1307a3403@jeffhostetler.com> Cc: jeffhost@microsoft.com, peff@peff.net, gitster@pobox.com, markbt@efaref.net, benpeart@microsoft.com From: Jeff Hostetler Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:13:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7ce6e14f-b2b1-19f3-916a-9ed1307a3403@jeffhostetler.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 3/16/2017 5:43 PM, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > > On 3/9/2017 3:18 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: >> Overall, this fetch/clone approach seems reasonable to me, except >> perhaps some unanswered questions (some of which are also being >> discussed elsewhere): >> - does the server need to tell us of missing blobs? >> - if yes, does the server need to tell us their file sizes? > > File sizes are a nice addition. For example, with a virtual > file system, a "ls -l" can lie and tell you the sizes of the > yet-to-be-populated files. Nevermind the "ls -l" case, I forgot about the need for the client to display the size of the (possibly) smudged file, rather than the actual blob size.