> I'm not really opposed to what you're doing here, but I did recently > think of another possible use for .promisor files. So it seems like a > good time to bring it up, since presumably we'd have to choose one or > the other.
Thanks for bringing it up - yes, we should discuss this. > I noticed when playing with partial clones that the client may sometimes > pause for a while, chewing CPU. The culprit is is_promisor_object(), > which generates the list of known promisor objects by opening every > object we _do_ have to find out which ones they mention. > > I know one of the original design features of the promisor pack was that > the client would _not_ keep a list of all of the objects it didn't have. > But I wonder if it would make sense to keep a cache of these "cut > points" in the partial clone. That's potentially smaller than the > complete set of objects (especially for tree-based partial cloning), and > it seems clear we're willing to store it in memory anyway. Well, before the current design was implemented, I had a design that had such a list of missing objects. :-) I couldn't find a writeup, but here is some preliminary code [1]. In that code, as far as I can tell, the server gives us the list directly during fetch and the client merges it with a repository-wide file called $GIT_DIR/objects/promisedblob, but we don't have to follow the design (we could lazily generate the file, have per-packfile promisedblob files, etc.). [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1499800530.git.jonathanta...@google.com/ > And if we do that, would the .promisor file for a pack be a good place > to store it? After looking at [1], it might be better in another place. If we want to preserve fast fetches, we still need another file to indicate that the pack is a promisor, so ".promisor" seems good for that. The presence or absence of the cutoff points is a separate issue and could go into a separate file, and it might be worth putting all cutoff points into a single per-repository file too.
