From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Teach git-fetch to exploit server side automatic tag following Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:53:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20080306045300.GN8410@spearce.org> References: <20080304032740.GC16462@spearce.org> <20080305055659.GD8410@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 06 05:53:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JX86y-00078q-8R for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:53:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756309AbYCFExH (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:53:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756230AbYCFExF (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:53:05 -0500 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:35488 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752339AbYCFExE (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:53:04 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-70-48-173.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.70.48.173] helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JX865-0005sn-Hx; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:52:49 -0500 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13B4420FBAE; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:53:01 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > - should followtags not be the default? > > > > No. Absolutely not. > > > > The client may not want tag objects from this remote. It might not want > > those tags for all sorts of reasons. Maybe they are doing a one-shot > > pull. Maybe they don't trust this remote. Maybe they trust this remote > > but this remote is famous for 192M tags containing PDFs of photo images > > of build logs printed out on paper, then photographed on a wood table > > and finally scanned in at 600 dpi. > > Sorry, I meant to say: "should the followtags feature not be on by default > in the circumstances where we would follow tags anyway"... > > Maybe you do that, but I did not see it. Nope. followtags should be on if the client wants tags, and off if the client does not want tags. Its that simple. There's no reason for the client to disable followtags if the server will actually support it, as disabling it when you do have tags to follow will only cost you extra net latency. -- Shawn.