Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-07 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Nieder writes: > - there shouldn't be any need for the blobs to even be mentioned in > the .pack stored locally. The .idx file maps from sha1 to offset > within the packfile --- a special offset could mean "this is a > missing blob". Clever. > - However, the list of missing blob

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-04 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi again, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > In my original RFC there were comments/complaints that with > missing blobs we lose the ability to detect corruptions. My > proposed changes to index-pack and rev-list (and suggestions > for other commands like fsck) just disabled those errors. > Personally, I'm

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-04 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 5/3/2017 2:27 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi, Jeff Hostetler wrote: Missing-Blob Support Let me offer up an alternative idea for representing missing blobs. This is differs from both of our previous proposals. (I don't have any code for this new proposal, I just want

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-03 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi, Jonathan Tan wrote: > The binary search to lookup a packfile offset from a .idx file > (which involves disk reads) would take longer for all lookups (not > just lookups for missing blobs) - I think I prefer keeping the lists > separate, to avoid pessimizing the (likely) usual case where the >

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-03 Thread Jonathan Tan
On 05/03/2017 09:38 AM, Jeff Hostetler wrote: On 3/8/2017 1:50 PM, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote: From: Jeff Hostetler [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch = [...] E. Unresolved Thoughts == *TODO* The server should optionally return (in a side-band?)

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-03 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > On 3/8/2017 1:50 PM, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote: >> [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch >> = >> [...] >> E. Unresolved Thoughts >> == >> >> *TODO* The server should optionally return (in a side-band?) a list >> of the blobs t

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-05-03 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 3/8/2017 1:50 PM, g...@jeffhostetler.com wrote: From: Jeff Hostetler [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch = [...] E. Unresolved Thoughts == *TODO* The server should optionally return (in a side-band?) a list of the blobs that it omitted from the p

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-22 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 3/22/2017 12:21 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: Hi Kostis, On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, ankostis wrote: On 8 March 2017 at 19:50, wrote: From: Jeff Hostetler [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch = This is a WIP RFC for a partial clone and fetch feature wherein the client

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-22 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Kostis, On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, ankostis wrote: > On 8 March 2017 at 19:50, wrote: > > From: Jeff Hostetler > > > > [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch > > = > > > > This is a WIP RFC for a partial clone and fetch feature wherein the > > client can request that the server

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-22 Thread ankostis
Dear Jeff I read most of the valuable references you provided but could not find something along the lines describing inline. On 8 March 2017 at 19:50, wrote: > From: Jeff Hostetler > > > [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch > = > > This is a WIP RFC for a partial clone a

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-17 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 3/16/2017 5:43 PM, Jeff Hostetler wrote: On 3/9/2017 3:18 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: Overall, this fetch/clone approach seems reasonable to me, except perhaps some unanswered questions (some of which are also being discussed elsewhere): - does the server need to tell us of missing blobs? -

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-16 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 3/9/2017 3:18 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: Overall, this fetch/clone approach seems reasonable to me, except perhaps some unanswered questions (some of which are also being discussed elsewhere): - does the server need to tell us of missing blobs? - if yes, does the server need to tell us their

Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-09 Thread Jonathan Tan
Overall, this fetch/clone approach seems reasonable to me, except perhaps some unanswered questions (some of which are also being discussed elsewhere): - does the server need to tell us of missing blobs? - if yes, does the server need to tell us their file sizes? - do we need to store the lis

[PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-08 Thread git
From: Jeff Hostetler [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch = This is a WIP RFC for a partial clone and fetch feature wherein the client can request that the server omit various blobs from the packfile during clone and fetch. Clients can later request omitted blobs (either

[PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

2017-03-08 Thread Jeff Hostetler
From: Jeff Hostetler [RFC] Partial Clone and Fetch = This is a WIP RFC for a partial clone and fetch feature wherein the client can request that the server omit various blobs from the packfile during clone and fetch. Clients can later request omitted blobs (either