From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE17D20FA81 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:02:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785592979; cv=none; b=rGRmyh6Z6imIM2w5oav+3nyH/LWvDJ0jaZLjjpjrBqHSp+TONr2v2aWyS4SB6BKw6wx+/BiiJeqhtv1hjpoRWuGHbhfHpYlM1Q/7J96Vene2BEMRFXdjIlsmMid3lI4+LxZ9SKh0FZD/5+6FFwK7s6r/sVLHjm9vGs7TIxE4Am8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785592979; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Vx1PJbQnF7zeTMhRaIvZy5Z07epCUFzg5xzm4UhVGSM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BmviqwXjUeBQYWQnEQNLzwac+516kJte2WxdRcCkV6Zui8TOVV6zTx7eXbQV/NeLibBMoJlcTcNJ7CoW1K27a7w3gMdlHcpiRYHfN3YqYtIFfzj0WAv+JnFDktipeNNaN6g8H/soOJh1smuwRdC+6QSlKE5usX3gk/sAlM9lasA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=g3wPVSvX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="g3wPVSvX" Received: (qmail 9629 invoked by uid 106); 1 Aug 2026 14:02:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=Vx1PJbQnF7zeTMhRaIvZy5Z07epCUFzg5xzm4UhVGSM=; b=g3wPVSvXWRr+QumCmCXT4mI318RBzGwhBqpeAywIpg0ChFUZSy1XD81N0Yqc4BKEl4RTNtGdWykOoIwOhvGE+ODXHC+vHLjjAvSWxCUuTLBgeK8+o2GSM2bOgdfbxqIpNGt/OGCteaVJxyVvs9NGHndQv8iQdu+PZuDNAZIt50er4M1/xDyxRLtHjCxzK9SyBAYb52W6OLM0jfWTueKgm7I+vzV9TQU+IraBaGVTBU7JAdGocK4nFIFD8J6nMdP2VSAiDxo6bXhXVI/b8JUbqu9OZo1kBNTTCNAuvWyVKAFmuTEs0AJIhhnpppO8CjUQYrIfAJRKPwFJ6zCPjjsyhA== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Aug 2026 14:02:56 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 17266 invoked by uid 111); 1 Aug 2026 14:02:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 01 Aug 2026 10:02:56 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 10:02:55 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Ted Nyman , git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, ps@pks.im, karthik.188@gmail.com, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net, avarab@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] packfile URIs: support concurrent downloads Message-ID: <20260801140255.GC2041176@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:41:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ted Nyman writes: > > > Changes since v5: > > > > * Split the existing double-close fix, HTTP 416 handling, generic > > concurrent-download fix, and Windows sharing fix into separate > > patches. > > * Replace the FIFO-based concurrent HTTP 416 test with a standalone > > completed-partial test. Besides simplifying the test, this covers the > > non-concurrent interrupted-download case directly. > > * Keep the final production code unchanged. > > > > Each patch passes t5550-http-fetch-dumb.sh. The final series also passes > > t5702-protocol-v2.sh, and the overlapping-download test passes 240 runs > > with 12 parallel stress jobs. > > > > The v5 discussion is at: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1785047139.git.tnyman@openai.com/ > > Is everybody happy with this new iteration? > > The design of the re-download feature itself, as far as I > understand, was favourably accepted from the earliest iteration, and > now the CI breakages were corrected with the latest iteration of the > tests, so we should be in pretty good shape, I presume. Yeah, sorry, I hadn't had time to look carefully. I just did so, and it all looks good to me. v6 splits the patches in a way that (at least to my mind) make the trickiest parts of the logic easier to follow. -Peff