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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 ED6B31F852 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231241AbiAaWGM (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:06:12 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63733 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231175AbiAaWGL (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:06:11 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9FC121FA3; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:06:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=87L+Jdh4fVgU KE1E9j667Vj/0pU7Nuk0X/thThCHzEo=; b=wr1gDImdATLID6ZDP+seNv7TMRln z2PsT7/44LwTPAT6MVaw+6BT8Y602H+clOhjxnFmp0MSNWmLOp6pcXQZq/Tua+Xi A9BA9j7OD/+YNkGINcqTtpgqqN/wOABGCQM9mXbjS6y1Bt0AYpVrntvSeARUQF8V v88ZbTRfMhv+kdU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9452E121FA2; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:06:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6954121FA1; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:06:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Elijah Newren , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] repo-settings: fix checking for fetch.negotiationAlgorithm=default References: <220128.86ee4scn2s.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220131.864k5jbo5h.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:06:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: <220131.864k5jbo5h.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:03:18 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FEEA98DA-82E1-11EC-AF00-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> Sounds good to me. I'm not very creative, so I think I'd just use >> "non-skipping" as the new name. > > I can't think of a better one either (aside from my already-suggested > "exhaustive"), but that's naming it in terms of the only other > negotiator. Skipping and the other one are both commit graph walkers. The traditional one reports each and every commit without skipping, so if the negation in "non-skipping" turns out to be problematic in naming, perhaps we can say "consecutive" vs "skipping" as the differentiator between the two? > E.g. if we were to make one called "smart-topology" or something (would > skip sending some OIDs by assuming things about branch/tag topology, > i.e. if you have X that probably includes Y) having negotiators "A", > "non-A", and "C" would be odd :) It is good to anticipate that somebody cleverly invents negotiator that is not based on "commit walker" concept ;-)