Brandon Williams writes:
> On 06/19, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Brandon Williams 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
On 06/19, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams 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
Brandon Williams 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
On 06/15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The story would be different if your request were
>
> git fetch refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>
> in which case, you are not even saying "I want this and that ref";
> you are saying "all refs in refs/heads/* whoever ends up serving me
> happens to
Junio C Hamano writes:
> The story would be different if your request were
>
> git fetch refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>
> in which case, you are not even saying "I want this and that ref";
> you are saying "all refs in refs/heads/* whoever ends up serving me
> happens to have". You
Brandon Williams writes:
> Currently, while performing packfile negotiation, clients are only
> allowed to specify their desired objects using object ids. This causes
> a vulnerability to failure when an object turns non-existent during
> negotiation, which may happen if, for example, the
On 06/14, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:39 PM Brandon Williams wrote:
> > negotiation, which may happen if, for example, the desired repository is
> > provided by multiple Git servers in a load-balancing arrangement.
>
> ... and the repository is not replicated
Hi Brandon,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:39 PM Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> Currently, while performing packfile negotiation, clients are only
> allowed to specify their desired objects using object ids. This causes
> a vulnerability to failure when an object turns non-existent during
I stopped
Currently, while performing packfile negotiation, clients are only
allowed to specify their desired objects using object ids. This causes
a vulnerability to failure when an object turns non-existent during
negotiation, which may happen if, for example, the desired repository is
provided by
9 matches
Mail list logo
