From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/16] index-pack: use nr_objects_final as sha1_table size Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <1378652660-6731-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> <1378735087-4813-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> <1378735087-4813-16-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: =?VISCII?Q?Nguy=ADn_Th=E1i_Ng=F7c_Duy?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 09 21:11:57 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VJ6sN-0000Jo-LZ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 21:11:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755410Ab3IITLv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:11:51 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:21006 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752978Ab3IITLv (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:11:51 -0400 Received: from yoda.home ([70.83.209.44]) by VL-VM-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MSV00430HBF65B0@VL-VM-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:11:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xanadu.home (xanadu.home [192.168.2.2]) by yoda.home (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E3E22DA0625; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:11:39 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > >> > ... I was > >> > wondering if some kind of prefix to the pack stream could be inserted > >> > onto the wire when sending a pack v4. Something like: > >> > > >> > 'T', 'H', 'I', 'N', > >> > > >> > This 8-byte prefix would simply be discarded by index-pack after being > >> > parsed. > >> > > >> > What do you think? > >> > >> I do not think it is _too_ bad if the meter jumped from 92% to 100% > >> when we finish reading from the other end ;-), as long as we can > >> reliably tell that we read the right thing. > > > > Sure. but eventually people will complain about this. So while we're > > about to introduce a new pack format anyway, better think of this little > > cosmetic detail now when it can be included in the pack v4 capability > > negociation. > > Oh, I completely agree on that part. When we send a self-contained > pack, would we send nothing? That is, should the receiving end > expect and rely on that the sending end will send a thin pack and > never a fat pack when asked to send a thin pack (and vice versa)? > > Also should we make the "even though we have negotiated the protocol > parameters, after enumerating the objects and deciding what the pack > stream would look like, we have a bit more information to tell you" > the sending side gives the receiver extensible? I am wondering if > that prefix needs something like "end of prefix" marker (or "here > comes N-bytes worth of prefix information" upfront); we probably do > not need it, as the capability exchange will determine what kind of > information will be sent (e.g. "actual objects in the thin pack data > stream"). Do we know the actual number of objects to send during the capability negociation? I don't think so as this is known only after the "compressing objects" phase, and that already depends on the capability negociation before it can start. Nicolas