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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 3D3811F5AD for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 19:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726285AbgDUTQ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:16:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:61669 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725902AbgDUTQz (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:16:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E243661B2D; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:16:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UDiDdpVrWw5kUPELu6TiRQpGcsU=; b=EVBr+w 3gOXJr7OU+MwTEHjeqTh/e9othSqNKgc4FNgqnlzvf+94oviVCi51zq7yygmQM7K NU9H9/paw6Cy+a/AlH0ESDDhQoEG2VKyiQKPu386esqZXf0QG7zxNyIC+cj7I7rV p0x9eVEHxqxmCd3QyjO0O+rhBQhF9CwTZBeLU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=AqhBIQowFwMU7bI6RjRHfqPk2nD88+BV VacSMpHWxnejIEzrGwnYaWHIQXwqOY7e84iQMVAjVWh4Uouz7yJffAjqYAm0eZd7 tOMa6RQ4x7nzCikDm+V9eq1ArD7pUwj3d9sLplmVtbmEOQekPIcCq6/UTSsbWay0 4EhD7zCqnfA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73A661B2C; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:16:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6315761B2B; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:16:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: "Dixit\, Ashutosh" , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan , Konstantin Ryabitsev Subject: Re: Bug in 2.26: git-fetch fetching too many objects? References: <878siqxiu0.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <20200421064541.GG96152@google.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 12:16:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200421064541.GG96152@google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Mon, 20 Apr 2020 23:45:41 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A829493E-8404-11EA-BC6E-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Nieder writes: > (+cc: Jonathan Tan, fetch negotiation expert) > Hi, > > Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > >> I am seeing a strange behavior in git-fetch in 2.26. I frequently fetch >> from a couple of linux kernel remotes (so you will have an idea how big the >> repo is). I have a different system with 2.20 on which I never see a >> problem. > ... > I suspect this is related to the change that protocol v2 does to use > stateless-rpc even in stateful protocols. If my suspicion is correct, > then the same behavior would show up with protocol v0 over http and > https as well. Thanks. This is at least the fourth time we hear that v2 may not be ready for the real-world use. Perhaps we should revert the default flip on the maintenance track while we hunt for bugs and improve the protocol support?