From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Continue git clone after interruption Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <1250509342.2885.13.camel@cf-48> <1250578735.2885.40.camel@cf-48> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Jakub Narebski , Tomasz Kontusz , git To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 19 01:40:43 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MdYID-0007Qm-Lf for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:40:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752119AbZHRXkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752025AbZHRXkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:31 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:49517 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752001AbZHRXkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:31 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KOL00BDJJ3FCI40@VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:40:27 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > > There is another way which we can go to implement resumable clone. > > > Let's git first try to clone whole repository (single pack; BTW what > > > happens if this pack is larger than file size limit for given > > > filesystem?). > > > > We currently fail. Seems that no one ever had a problem with that so > > far. > > They just went away, most probably. Most probably they simply don't exist. I would be highly surprised otherwise. > But seriously, I miss a very important idea in this discussion: we control > the Git source code. So we _can_ add a upload_pack feature that a client > can ask for after the first failed attempt. Indeed. So what do you think about my proposal? It was included in my first reply to this thread. Nicolas