From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] fetch: fetch objects by their exact SHA-1 object names Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:18:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20130205111816.GA25303@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1359571542-19852-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <1359571542-19852-8-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20130205091938.GB24973@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Pearce To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 05 12:18:52 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U2gY8-0007C2-3I for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:18:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751829Ab3BELSV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:18:21 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:33104 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146Ab3BELSU (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:18:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 28143 invoked by uid 107); 5 Feb 2013 11:19:45 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:19:45 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:18:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130205091938.GB24973@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 04:19:38AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > But taking a step back, this really seems quite inferior to an > extension that would allow the client to share its refspecs with the > server. That would solve the bandwidth efficiency problem for normal > fetchers who are I should have read your cover letter more closely, as I see you make the point there that this is no longer about the efficiency, but about uncluttering. I'm not sure I like it as an uncluttering tool, though; for the reasons I stated in my previous mail, it makes it much more awkward for the moments when you actually do want to fetch some of the "clutter". -Peff