From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFDCC4338F for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:40:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6181A61163 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 20:40:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245030AbhHFUke (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:40:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57136 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231572AbhHFUke (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:40:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3190EC0613CF for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 13:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id ca5so18425031pjb.5 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:40:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=9uIhqhtUxB/2RpKQoM4aILqXEFoH5zJn3S2s5hCeWEU=; b=TH/Br3xCUOXk9MKWXmWk7G+aF75UpVqZIBLN4GxEj1pC8YomSFhFcsA4V5pgyEqwPC mfmIBvybIIPPyuEaM/ATFQD8aEybQKYXI7e7NLZCz9EYla16QhhyFzEuFcLqjWqbmnfJ dvYjW9/o6HWxaUa6O5/9UqMbWcpdygQMu+VBh394PN50iLLwNiGjhqKhBepFaLnnoOZf asn6bw7lY6wnZhCIlYOgVUaTK7PzGR6wch7WzUFZ/QhL6GbkVSdoBNKcGl8HS6W8FvG8 oz3Lq1uscewfbc/JbUpzDdXA545Kglj55Ifjwv6/+BOwkKG89ZVDF/wLdjII9pqt1dht jjqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=9uIhqhtUxB/2RpKQoM4aILqXEFoH5zJn3S2s5hCeWEU=; b=Jwj/59AdL6hQ4zoMmRZ38b2quPIFaUx9TXSvrZXCZ4j9cA8xDAw4cPXaqW/Q/IQTU3 JVr16hOxR142RLLEuYMY0ihRb6mWUB9zlwnJfzuJ6QX3gzzYAD/fFBZ9fqdDa5Phyn3U a3SOFnng7sHtEc6XEQdNUKpqhylZ3F93jtahgjbRmJhcDsvzkPg/YzFkqhOjIqDfX4X5 sEEusbgm7yP+7/dkRG5zKStPU/8gjiQ/knW5tJYt6LVF8oof8tbqXj4p/VhIJVhojuzC BEVUBag1REO++BA7qnDnzjqcsrAG1FYSqr6m1Q4GDa0dLQXapAzLyooveo4CL3PYsERL I/9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532saJWjgNj9P1KY2Qyd2u+oV0e4+YRpdbB8VIOnMl1X2vFfWNwJ 98YJ6xaR49pVJFdWghB3Ci0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx9CG72ADElRi5Y5vRzRx1nVUkNesbWiZvCFX7mNsnj7wpOytsBpYQzQvEgpX7wcRog+I8h+w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:db51:: with SMTP id u17mr4252354pjx.111.1628282416744; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:7578:9c9b:8fe8:cece]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm13513437pjk.47.2021.08.06.13.40.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Aug 2021 13:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 13:40:13 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Patrick Steinhardt , Christian Couder , Albert Cui , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Add bundle-uri: resumably clones, static "dumb" CDN etc. Message-ID: References: <87h7g2zd8f.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87h7g2zd8f.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Or perhaps not, but they're my currently my best effort to explain the > differences between the two and how they interact. So I think it's best > to point to those instead of coming up with something in this reply, > which'll inevitably be an incomplete rewrite of much of that. > > In short, there are use-cases that packfile-uri is inherently unsuitable > for, or rather changing the packfile-uri feature to support them would > pretty much make it indistinguishable from this bundle-uri mechanism, > which I think would just add more confusion to the protocol. Hm. I was hoping you might say more about those use cases --- e.g. is there a concrete installation that wants to take advantage of this? By focusing on the real-world example, we'd get a better shared understanding of the underlying constraints. After all, both are ways to reduce the bandwidth of a clone or other large fetch operation by offloading the bulk of content to static serving. Thanks, Jonathan