From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git fetch origin $SHA1 doesn't work as often as it could Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20160519015323.GA24225@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: JP Sugarbroad X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 19 03:53:32 2016 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 1b3D9X-0004Bj-T8 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 19 May 2016 03:53:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753695AbcESBx1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:27 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:41633 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753680AbcESBx0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 10467 invoked by uid 102); 19 May 2016 01:53:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 28603 invoked by uid 107); 19 May 2016 01:53:28 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:28 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 May 2016 21:53:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 06:40:37PM -0400, JP Sugarbroad wrote: > > I just fear that it is a wrong approach to solve the real issue and > > instead make it worse by relieving the pressure from the project and > > hosting site to configure their repository to support their users > > properly. > > Unfortunately I don't see the likes of github or bitbucket adding > allow-reachable-sha1-in-want any time soon, as it is an expensive > operation server-side. I don't think it's _too_ bad, at least compared to some of the nastier things one can convince the server side of a git fetch to do. It at least looks at just the commits; the bad cases usually involve traversing the whole object graph. It's also something that's easily sped up with reachability bitmaps. But I haven't done any real analysis on the kind of load it would cause. So no promises, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for GitHub to enable, if it's something that would be useful to a lot of people. I can't speak for Bitbucket. :) -Peff