From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not send "want" lines for complete objects
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:09:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vzmp5xfwu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.63.0510200004290.7689@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> Also, git-fetch-pack does not have to ask for descendants of remote refs
> which are complete (for now, git-rev-list is told to ignore only the first
> parent).
I should interpret what you said with s/descendant/ancestor/
applied, I think. I would like to make sure I understand what
you are doing here.
> + if (has_sha1_file(remote)
> + && parse_object(remote)->flags & COMPLETE) {
> + if (rev_command_len + 44 < sizeof(rev_command)) {
> + snprintf(rev_command + rev_command_len, 44,
> + " ^%s^", sha1_to_hex(remote));
> + rev_command_len += 43;
> + }
This rev-list command is to generate the list of "have", and we
learned that the other side says she has remote -- we choose not
to tell her that we have ancestors of it, but we do tell her
about the remote head itself.
Let's draw a single strand of pearl case to illustrate. You
have a commit chain A->B->C->D, and the other end says she has
C. At this point, telling her that you have C is enough, and by
not telling her about A and B, you would save her from depreting
MAX_HAVE slots. Of course, if the other end has D as another
head, then the above logic would give "^D^" to rev-list as well,
telling it not to tell her about C, but that is what we want --
because she already knows you have C too when you tell her that
you have D. I think I like this optimization.
One thing that might help, when we are telling the other end
about what we have, is an output ordering option to get-rev-list
that shows not in chronological order, but in the order of
distance from the tip. That may give the other end a better
chance to find the latest (in commit order) common commit in
each branch without running out is MAX_HAS buffer.
> NOTE: I'd rather have git-rev-list circumvented, so that
> descendants of ack'ed objects are not sent via "have" lines.
I think since we do the traversal ourselves this may start to
make more sense.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-19 23:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-19 22:07 [PATCH] Do not send "want" lines for complete objects Johannes Schindelin
2005-10-19 23:09 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2005-10-20 1:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-10-20 2:04 ` Johannes Schindelin
2005-10-20 4:08 ` Johannes Schindelin
2005-10-20 4:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-10-20 20:32 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-10-20 23:16 ` Johannes Schindelin
2005-10-21 0:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-10-21 15:44 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-10-20 1:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vzmp5xfwu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net \
--to=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox