From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: New Feature wanted: Is it possible to let git clone continue last break point? Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:41:36 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwrbigna7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20111031090717.GA24978@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <20111102220614.GB14108@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , netroby , Git Mail List , Tomas Carnecky To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 02 23:41:44 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 1RLjVA-0003C8-47 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 23:41:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752505Ab1KBWlk (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:41:40 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:62871 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752077Ab1KBWlj (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:41:39 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBD36C8D; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:41:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/v8FU4dPreXLwZGY7Qhrwc6rDfQ=; b=kiAyN0 RST/UfPMWx9KCc7qC41sylVeBTr9rSo/Kv9HuyP0nXqQ8XDOMpLwXeCvBvBtJoJ8 7lQLGDu4Yd0ddv0+2hwZIRtD66umen2fi+v0nmW0gVHC/5BE0z3uiydk+dpm7G9z 6K5S11WxQoabF/6YHxAADXkrOb8RbuT3HjkHM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dw/PqSU0AoQj4lM5BDBC0L1MPw+LJjmq 3gaZGZ4z4w6Txjqb+crZILO5d638z+Cx4zbyAaecSJdSd9O86jayk5qMPiwrUfcc jVDB7fBsaGlI1nRUbOSRATLRG5btXw3wUMmhg7j5IpkhrACZ8bQqCXzlUDMSlhx6 Weq3XSC5LIw= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE04D6C8C; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:41:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F92B6C8B; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:41:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20111102220614.GB14108@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:06:14 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D37647F6-05A3-11E1-8EE3-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > Which is all a roundabout way of saying that the git protocol is really > the sane way to do efficient transfers. An alternative, much simpler > scheme would be for the server to just say: > > - if you have nothing, then prime with URL http://host/bundle > > And then _only_ clone would bother with checking mirrors. People doing > fetch would be expected to do it often enough that not being resumable > isn't a big deal. I think that is a sensible place to start. A more fancy conditional "If you have X then fetch this, if you have Y fetch that, ..." sounds nice but depending on what branch you are fetching the answer has to be different. If we were to do that, the natural place for the server to give the redirect instruction to the client is after the client finishes saying "want", and before the client starts saying "have".