Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:26:33 +0200 Michael Haggerty wrote: > Maybe naming has been discussed at length before, and I am jumping into > a long-settled topic. And admittedly this is bikeshedding. > > But I find these names obscure, even as a developer. And terms like this >

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

Jonathan Tan writes: > I've pushed a new version: > > https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/tree/partialclone3 Just FYI, the reason why I commented only on the first patch in your previous series at GitHub wasn't because I found the others perfect and nothing to comment

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:43:43 -0700 Jonathan Tan wrote: > For those interested in partial clones and/or missing objects in repos, > I've updated my original partialclone patches to not require an explicit > list of promises. Fetch/clone still only permits exclusion of

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:25:16 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > >> Perhaps you could augment the OID lookup to remember where the object > >> was found (essentially a .promisor bit set). Then you wouldn't need > >> to touch them all. > > > > Sorry - I don't understand this.

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On 09/22/2017 12:42 AM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:57:30 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > [...] >> I struggled with the terms here a little when looking at the source. >> () A remote responding to a partial-clone is termed a >> "promisor-remote". () Packfiles

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

On 9/22/2017 6:58 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:32:00 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: I guess I'm afraid that the first call to is_promised() is going cause a very long pause as it loads up a very large hash of objects. Yes, the first call will cause a

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

On 9/22/2017 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:19:50 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: In your specific example, how would rev-list know, on the client, to include (or exclude) a large blob in its output if it does not have it, and thus does not know its

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:32:00 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > I guess I'm afraid that the first call to is_promised() is going > cause a very long pause as it loads up a very large hash of objects. Yes, the first call will cause a long pause. (I think fsck and gc can

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:19:50 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > In your specific example, how would rev-list know, on the client, to > > include (or exclude) a large blob in its output if it does not have it, > > and thus does not know its size? > > > > The client doesn't

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:02:11 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > I was struggling a bit with the terminology, true. > > > > Right now I'm thinking of: > > - promisor remote (as you defined) > > - promisor packfile (as you defined) > > - promisor object is an object

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

On 9/21/2017 7:04 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:00:40 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: (part 3) Additional overall comments on: https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 {} WRT the code in is_promised() [1] [1]

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

On 9/21/2017 6:51 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:43 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: (part 2) Additional overall comments on: https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 {} I think it would help to split the blob-max-bytes filtering and

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On 9/21/2017 6:42 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:57:30 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: There's a lot in this patch series. I'm still studying it, but here are some notes and questions. I'll start with direct responses to the RFC here and follow up in a

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:00:40 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > (part 3) > > Additional overall comments on: > https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 > > {} WRT the code in is_promised() [1] > > [1] >

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:43 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > (part 2) > > Additional overall comments on: > https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 > > {} I think it would help to split the blob-max-bytes filtering and the > promisor/promised

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:57:30 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > There's a lot in this patch series. I'm still studying it, but here > are some notes and questions. I'll start with direct responses to > the RFC here and follow up in a second email with specific questions >

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 3)

(part 3) Additional overall comments on: https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 {} WRT the code in is_promised() [1] [1] https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commit/7a9c2d9b6e2fce293817b595dee29a7eede0#diff-5d5d5dc185ef37dc30bb7d9a7ae0c4e8R1960 {} it looked like it

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

(part 2) Additional overall comments on: https://github.com/jonathantanmy/git/commits/partialclone2 {} I think it would help to split the blob-max-bytes filtering and the promisor/promised concepts and discuss them independently. {} Then we can talk about about the promisor/promised

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

There's a lot in this patch series. I'm still studying it, but here are some notes and questions. I'll start with direct responses to the RFC here and follow up in a second email with specific questions and comments to keep this from being too long). On 9/15/2017 4:43 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:

Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

Jonathan Tan writes: > For those interested in partial clones and/or missing objects in repos, > I've updated my original partialclone patches to not require an explicit > list of promises. Fetch/clone still only permits exclusion of blobs, but > the infrastructure is

RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK)

For those interested in partial clones and/or missing objects in repos, I've updated my original partialclone patches to not require an explicit list of promises. Fetch/clone still only permits exclusion of blobs, but the infrastructure is there for a local repo to support missing trees and