On 06/19, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> 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?
Sorry Jonathan Tan said it much clearer here: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180615190458.147775-1-jonathanta...@google.com/ -- Brandon Williams
