From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Resumable clone/Gittorrent (again) - stable packs? Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:27:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20110107222704.GA10583@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110107052207.GA23128@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110107053119.GA23177@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110107185218.GA16645@LK-Perkele-VI.localdomain> <20110107191719.GA6175@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110107214501.GA29959@LK-Perkele-VI.localdomain> <20110107215631.GA10343@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110107222133.GA2377@LK-Perkele-VI.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Zenaan Harkness , git@vger.kernel.org To: Ilari Liusvaara X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 07 23:27:22 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PbKmH-0005oA-Ih for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:27:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754724Ab1AGW1I (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:27:08 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:57373 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754650Ab1AGW1H (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:27:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 19150 invoked by uid 111); 7 Jan 2011 22:27:06 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:27:06 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:27:04 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110107222133.GA2377@LK-Perkele-VI.localdomain> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 12:21:33AM +0200, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 11:45:01PM +0200, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > > > > > I think there should always be an assumption that mirrors are not > > necessarily complete. That is necessary for bundle-like mirrors to be > > feasible, since updating the bundle for every commit defeats the > > purpose. > > Also add protocol that grabs a bundle from HTTP and then opens that > up? :-) Well, yes, that still needs to be implemented. But it's all client-side, so the server just has to provide the bundle somewhere. > > It would be nice for there to be a way for some mirrors to be marked as > > "should be considered complete and authoritative", since we can optimize > > out the final check of the master in that case (as well as for future > > fetches). But that's a future feature. My plan was to leave space in the > > mirror list for arbitrary metadata of that sort. > > The first thing one should get/do when connecting to another repository > is its list of references. One can see from there if what one has got > is complete or not (with --use-mirror that only allows skipping commit > negotiation and fetch, not the whole connection due to the fact that the > repositories are contacted in order)... Yes, but it would be cool to be able to skip even that connect in some cases (e.g., mirrors can be useful not just to take load off the master, but also when the master isn't available, either for downtime or because the client is behind a firewall). But the default should definitely be to double-check that the master is right, and we can leave more advanced cases for later (we just need to be aware of leaving room for them now). I'm going to start working on a patch series for this, so hopefully we'll see how it's shaping up in a day or two. -Peff