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=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 52855201A4 for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 05:29:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752456AbdELF3t (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2017 01:29:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.83.48]:34594 "EHLO mail-pg0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767AbdELF3s (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2017 01:29:48 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id u28so25025022pgn.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2017 22:29:48 -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=6JjEW+ORvMDgvb0Q8rIGxDENnSu5VoZjXkB/5ps5s1s=; b=Blbrbg3WhUsHpHAYkEnvrKrHCDpUgq3PG16V84r5O7XkpZHJFW4vbcDdIrSPx6gyKa 5pYn5yEHszvY2JqUBrCiUq5LSrsTq+6Oh4l1stWP4x1NI+cA5dWFShj/oc/PPvczdZxd 3nYseBs21AqiTNQtGs77XtVFVeJ9XTQSH/I3Fe1WUAQA688pW2tnWoh6h/r1nSJIEF/7 JTBPW9CHTDYLdDlAOemVmCLBAKQfWwV1QZYDdbmkE2hXfJCqiEvyOS0Peh3ZB+s4yYKv UPlAQNd32shgVoDqv9bip7k+GB9mTm6Fl0v9RjdPHLJRSu4MJkrDa9WjoSFTzSv39eWC j7jg== 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=6JjEW+ORvMDgvb0Q8rIGxDENnSu5VoZjXkB/5ps5s1s=; b=Hy7F20GsPZ1IHWF21jCYviVq0YY1mgKUeBZ6jCgvKB9GboBJImSIYGlOI2WxwWLodW njV2LozU6iaXOg096C4j/QnXplw73V9F7t8b/MhcXSerXkfHmwkTFfT1ekF17/zkHEJg Oc+svXuRqK7RWVZnrCyIwiDmL1DIBhAF9oAuOAuCnZMki+1yWPrK4/Um6i24f3HSneEx aDe/FKsu9liNF6CBiy+YNbmnwB+2UV2fALAvKE2AwUEGb50vptNUas2XffppnNfCfrbU 5tbCVuJm4cP1TdS32ov7IDOLP2prKUSs7+2J4D5HVEgQaQjWgCEwjF/eFRvwu2CaVhvp 6UHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDOzUBWnYyCcZZcjHiYk6FPzij5WNRwMhunS/NmZtWnhRYt+fTd rC6AmQCp5cOleQ== X-Received: by 10.84.164.199 with SMTP id l7mr3288040plg.11.1494566987682; Thu, 11 May 2017 22:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:954c:c08b:c855:8b7f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g5sm2573210pfe.34.2017.05.11.22.29.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 May 2017 22:29:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2017, #03; Wed, 10) References: Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 14:29:46 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 11 May 2017 15:08:35 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (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 Johannes Schindelin 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.