On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:13:00AM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote: > > In v1 I implemented a) with the busy-loop problem in mind. > > My thinking was this: > > If the filter sees at least one filter request twice then the filter knows > that > Git has already requested all files that require filtering. At that point the > filter could just block the "delayed" answer to the latest filter request > until > at least one of the previously delayed requests can be fulfilled. Then the > filter > answers "delay" to Git until Git requests the blob that can be fulfilled. This > process cycles until all requests can be fulfilled. Wouldn't that work? > > I think a "done" message by the filter is not easy. Right now the protocol > works > in a mode were Git always asks and the filter always answers. I believe > changing > the filter to be able to initiate a "done" message would complicated the > protocol. > > > Additionally, the protocol should specify a sentinel "no more entries" value > > that could be sent from Git to the filter to signal that there are no more > > files > > to checkout. Some filters may implement mechanisms for converting files that > > require a signal to know when all files have been sent. Specifically, Git > > LFS > > (https://git-lfs.github.com) batches files to be transferred together, and > > needs > > to know when all files have been announced to truncate and send the last > > batch, > > if it is not yet full. I'm sure other filter implementations use a similar > > mechanism and would benefit from this as well. > > I agree. I think the filter already has this info implicitly as explained > above > but an explicit message would be better!
This works, but forces some undesirable constraints: - The filter has to keep track of all items in the checkout to determine how many times Git has asked about them. This is probably fine, though annoying. Cases where this is not fine is when there are _many_ items in the checkout forcing filter implementations to keep track of large sets of data. - The protocol is now _must_ ask for the status of checkout items in a particular order. If the assumption is that "Git has sent me all items in the checkout by the point I see Git ask for the status of an item more than once", then Git _cannot_ ask for the status of a delayed item while there are still more items to checkout. This could be OK, so long as the protocol commits to it and documents this behavior. What are your thoughts? -- Thanks, Taylor Blau ttayl...@github.com
