From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) 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,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E93C1F403 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 20:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757228AbeFSUhV (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:37:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:36793 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757106AbeFSUhQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:37:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id v131-v6so2828377wma.1 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:37:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=oz5/Uvc+unppJ5tvmLwVAFbOEwiV1eeOuukAHQsg0/A=; b=mX4XxWelJrZrxXIAxm/RzhDj1wTalmEXBUSFCdTXpm+ST/jqj0eG5IBDymSXknCV2w NPm0FNTdwLq364RNFdRB0n5MWFAnu+yvQFmvYj4SXkj0RxmIuNXIb9H4QBEhsS2m6Eot +0FrBBvf/dkHzsAbotb6ckwM2RhyM4QLYRlKCpOuGvLTnLsMKANdRkplMctU65T2gmWm ifw1etJoJEKc6cz3bPwhbJQwZyg47Ry0KoYiVl4aUEZtuKkD8hWbwG0+zbbb60ripzO/ uv5QAPQohjagWk/rMO9QhmP5gkBrxEajSQCtTRKWdhYdMEsrB4qIng8NvsZV1WdmPXb4 6Beg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=oz5/Uvc+unppJ5tvmLwVAFbOEwiV1eeOuukAHQsg0/A=; b=MgMnC7VbPbtu2CtFshBc/VW8+pluzuypIWQXZ9PYglVhnQDDUbJRaPAD0j2TdmK57A qbKp5n85j1DTymbQuHQXqHLEUSjP3fJ1Vp9hOlbgxnrqejYY2IGQwVVqQhhAhWsMcEvc 68ceiklzgMWvaRq9wdVF5H/yueRIWQ4YuXxVxFo3Iix2ii6CO9oAUxUAqAlhhJ601rlg h6LDm976iK6pwvzgTTj4HDZ5ZRaeBpikJf4jlDC5Symdbk4DkKd8uT/lBJllLktQRBEb r3tV3XXBedKzm9YFCpvtnnTmDXWTDvzMP/x1burZFDiwtdGbBvAc+RLdbNJcB6KKNILy ZS0w== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3T7myfxByDDEgAQGvymHfHdtBpxmJAsxegRx+PNlAsP/VTcN1n ohcGmIoVis1+8UNmEGbbrjA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLmhPcDTKHJ3ARKKLDos8tObdtOZvmGhrMkyKH1kShiCkINb0YFWkAWkuX2SGCKP5rROUk+/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3ac6:: with SMTP id h189-v6mr14163366wma.64.1529440635165; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h12-v6sm10125787wmb.3.2018.06.19.13.37.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:37:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Brandon Williams Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] upload-pack: implement ref-in-want References: <20180605175144.4225-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180613213925.10560-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180613213925.10560-3-bmwill@google.com> <20180619185033.GC199585@google.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:37:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180619185033.GC199585@google.com> (Brandon Williams's message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2018 11:50:33 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Brandon Williams writes: > I also think that we should keep this first implementation of > ref-in-want simple and *not* include patterns, even if that's what we > may want someday down the road. Adding a new capability in the future > for support of such patterns would be relatively simple and easy. I am all for many-small-steps over a single-giant-step approach. > The > reason why I don't think we should add pattern support just yet is due > to a request for "want-ref refs/tags/*" or a like request resulting in a > larger than expected packfile every time "fetch --tags" is run. The > issue being that in a fetch request "refs/tags/*" is too broad of a > request and could be requesting 100s of tags when all we really wanted > was to get the one or two new tags which are present on the remote > (because we already have all the other tags present locally). I do not quite get this. Why does it have to result in a large packfile? Doesn't the requester of refs/tags/* still show what it has via "have" exchange?