From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>, gitster@pobox.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Avoid ls-refs when possible in protocol v2
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 12:24:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1538075680.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180925225355.74237-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
To answer Junio's questions in [1], I think it's best to include the
full patch set that I'm developing, so here it is. The original patch is
now patch 3 of this set.
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq8t3pnphe.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com/
Rearranging Junio's questions:
> ... ah, do you mean that this is not a new feature, but is a bugfix
> for some callers that are not calling get-remote-refs before calling
> fetch-refs, and the bit is to work around the fact that some
> transport not just can function without get-remote-refs first but do
> not want to call it?
Yes, it is the bugfix you describe, except that the bug coincidentally
does not cause any bad behavior. fetch-object.c indeed does not call
get-remote-refs before fetch-refs, but it calls transport_set_option(),
which so happens to do what we need (call set_helper_option()).
However, we need it now, because ...
> But this I do not quite understand. It looks saying "when asked to
> fetch, if the transport does not allow us to do so without first
> getting the advertisement, lazily do that", and that may be a good
> thing to do, but then aren't the current set of callers already
> calling transport-get-remote-refs elsewhere before they call
> transport-fetch-refs? IOW, I would have expected to see a matching
> removal, or at least a code that turns an unconditional call to
> get-remote-refs to a conditional one that is done only for the
> transport that lacks the capability, or something along that line.
... this "matching removal" you are talking about is in the subsequent
patch 4. And there is no transport_set_option() to save us this time, so
we really do need this bugfix.
> IOW, I am a bit confused by this comment (copied from an earlier part)
>
> > + /**
> > + * This transport supports the fetch() function being called
> > + * without get_refs_list() first being called.
> > + */
>
> Shouldn't it read more like "this transport does not want its
> get-refs-list called when fetch-refs is done"?
>
> I dunno.
I'm not sure I understand - transports generally don't care if
get-refs-list is called after fetch-refs. Also, this already happens
when fetching with tag following from a server that does not support tag
following, using a transport that supports reuse.
Jonathan Tan (4):
transport: allow skipping of ref listing
transport: do not list refs if possible
transport: list refs before fetch if necessary
fetch: do not list refs if fetching only hashes
builtin/fetch.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++-----
fetch-pack.c | 2 +-
t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh | 15 +++++++++++
t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh | 18 +++++++++++++
transport-helper.c | 1 +
transport-internal.h | 6 +++++
transport.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
7 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
--
2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-27 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-25 22:53 [RFC PATCH] transport: list refs before fetch if necessary Jonathan Tan
2018-09-25 23:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-09-27 19:24 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
2018-09-27 19:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] transport: allow skipping of ref listing Jonathan Tan
2018-09-27 19:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] transport: do not list refs if possible Jonathan Tan
2018-09-27 21:38 ` Stefan Beller
2018-10-07 0:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2018-09-27 19:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] transport: list refs before fetch if necessary Jonathan Tan
2018-09-27 19:24 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] fetch: do not list refs if fetching only hashes Jonathan Tan
2018-09-27 21:43 ` Stefan Beller
2018-09-28 17:50 ` Jonathan Tan
2018-09-27 20:53 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Avoid ls-refs when possible in protocol v2 Junio C Hamano
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=cover.1538075680.git.jonathantanmy@google.com \
--to=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).