Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #03; Wed, 10)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * jc/bundle (2016-03-03) 6 commits
>>  - index-pack: --clone-bundle option
>>  - Merge branch 'jc/index-pack' into jc/bundle
>>  - bundle v3: the beginning
>>  - bundle: keep a copy of bundle file name in the in-core bundle header
>>  - bundle: plug resource leak
>>  - bundle doc: 'verify' is not about verifying the bundle
>> 
>>  The beginning of "split bundle", which could be one of the
>>  ingredients to allow "git clone" traffic off of the core server
>>  network to CDN.
>> 
>>  This was surrected from a "to be discarded" pile, as from time to
>>  time people wonder about resumable clone that can be primed without
>>  bothering Git servers with dynamic packfile creation, and some
>>  people seem to think that the topic could serve as a useful
>>  building block for that goal.  But nothing seem to have happend.
>>  Unless people really want it, I am inclined to discard this topic.
>>  Opinions?
>
> The primary concern that wants to be solved by these patches is the
> resumable clone, right?
>
> If so, I think that we may want to rethink that approach. If your
> bandwidth is flakey and your repository is large, the upcoming work to
> support fetching objects incrementally (there are three competing
> proposals about this IIUC, hopefully they will settle into a single
> approach soon) may actually be the better way forward.

In short, these won't help, those who asked them to be kept a bit
longer in my tree were mistaken, and nobody will miss them if I just
discarded this topic?

I'm all for that ;-)  The smaller number of patches I need to carry
around, the better.

Thanks.