Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> writes: > On 9/6/2019 4:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> >>> I suppose so. But I think the "stock git without any other job >>> infrastructure" case would still benefit. >> >> Oh, no question about it. >> >> I did question if an automatic writing would benefit the side that >> receives a push when you brought up the usual "fetch.* and receive.* >> for separate configuration, transfer.* when want to rule them both" >> convention, which is a good idea if only for consistency, but the >> question was if it helps the receiving end of a push to the same >> degree as it would help the repository that fetches. > > I think the "stock git without any other job infrastructure" is > a very important scenario. Putting the simplest version of > "commit-graph writes in-line with every push" seems to be ripe > for failure under load. I'd rather think deeply about what is > best for this scenario.
As to what to do on the push side, I suppose we can afford to let it simmer in the back of our heads while moving this topic forward. Whether we'd later decide to have receive.writeCommitGraph (in which case we would add transfer.writeCommitGraph, too) or not, this change on the fetch side can independently be used, right? Thanks.
