Re: Git-aware HTTP transport

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>]

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>
>> It appears that you really meant "Binary", as opposed to "Hexadecimal"
>> that show-ref example illustrate, judging from the later 3,276 number.
>> I'd prefer hexadecimal here.
>>
>
> I *think* the "native" git protocol uses binary here.  It makes sense to  
> be consistent, to allow them to share code?

No, the native protocol is horribly verbose here:

	0032want ac3abe10ed54d512fbbaeb7cef19972eedd8e4a8
	0032want 404c3bbec34f5c65c5024c856eed4dbbfc27831e
	0032want 9bcc7aff6095549c1425aef6ca0034c47189705d
	0032have 471287a3c311e486206d3c6ff94faf3dfffc736c
	0032have 48f27055a4fa5f4da8234f44808f0b0c70629218
	0032have d4cc612f218b3dd3b831e3b976bf85165cd4f3d4
	...

so its doing it in hex, and its using 10 bytes of "framing" for
every SHA-1 it sends as each is sent in its own pkt-line with the
have/want header.

-- 
Shawn.