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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 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_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60821F4C1 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 00:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727721AbfJLAr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:47:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58829 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727262AbfJLAr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:47:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B21481C19; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:47:25 -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=CO9axGqz1y4LEQdJXXUZrblVOo4=; b=aCu6XY UuJG29W2z3kI5nhqEiy/Ras6srHTVB1OwwyKIgvrrLAHwLGMT5w+QaUitACpqqTt vJROSKlWKuB+YhhWKte9Ol6KON5DVlrGwq+3B7XUFRIucR/sbn8mPh5qyVhomYk4 NWf1tCJB41H9b6TjchJ24HMKYKTsL8AeLbjc8= 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=ZxhcXCiTukN8+xB6THW/l94iJ2PjLRiY XvHR32JBla5Gqrd/n5Xox9MsQ3Ju9tGqecZBIBGhe0E2DaxHZ+xd1hprrzTGLT+v s/IBAmKZSFCir5Cvq3GjRcCFwwmiCGqcw0sJjBlRFoCIDTazPK4N6soetVCTomnC q+CEctwT4AY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6263E81C18; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:47:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EE5181C15; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:47:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Derrick Stolee , Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] send-pack: never fetch when checking exclusions References: <20191008183739.194714-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <20191011061257.GD20094@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20191011161504.GB19741@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 09:47:20 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20191011161504.GB19741@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:15:05 -0400") 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: DA24B094-EC89-11E9-B714-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > As a general rule (and why I'm raising this issue in reply to Jonathan's > patch), I think most or all sites that want OBJECT_INFO_QUICK will want > SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT as well, and vice versa. The reasoning is generally > the same: > > - it's OK to racily have a false negative (we'll still be correct, but > possibly a little less optimal) > > - it's expected and normal to be missing the object, so spending time > double-checking the pack store wastes measurable time in real-world > cases 31f5256c ("sha1-file: split OBJECT_INFO_FOR_PREFETCH", 2019-05-28) separated SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT out of FOR_PREFETCH, the latter of which was and is SKIP_FETCH and QUICK combined. Use SKIP_FETCH_OBJECT alone may need to be re-examined and discouraged?