From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1694192B65 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:38:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738006742; cv=none; b=jZ0pLT8mJnInJNRAhW3UMddUFXjUvajk8MuCj9lyZLGKXLdQWNM2JasAV635HtVXDHUzPwwuHUgrs0M3DhIHNQDHUhN4XUXB5te4jzqK72IHSQ+xNC6tHrGw6QNuM/+yX7MrcCA2ctFFPGtT6dzsUxn760/0CKM0ig1jhaIefSY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738006742; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oPCqYhxd+fMlFptYyMXo3Iw5gk+O8C1rqTJrt3hI02g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=WAcjKlrqyDoqoYxwycN3l9xYMSIFXGns0zS/gkJt/yT1IdvbjW8dRA0ehgJui/BSgqXqS7u2jw1OLT6RordtzoLBKz3pP6DqUyorGPxuX/tDKlPo2l6HdcuwBqrZwSviKrmOeywWSJA6JeOvr2PJ4FWcXu97KOhAwyrQSBrzO+Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Gp/PWpgy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ZYcZPdK8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Gp/PWpgy"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ZYcZPdK8" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52B025401C9; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:38:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1738006738; x=1738093138; bh=VM6p+2yEp8 KcVqfM0W+1VHbAsub6NI9EGyaQ9R1Gbbc=; b=Gp/PWpgyAZ/XiRgbpuYiThLUTK HGxqZ3Kx2+M600RJgDX1ai8W8uczFTwHVOpvSZhsjTwiwWBi2EAEKzoSK6cxsNn9 ljEceZU0iYyoWtwKPE43YAkK7lP2V9IgIyhTZSy8wKZEM0blOnubfDEOBKS2ZTHc E/0LJcjWx6KvNbyCm0NdligUrvQn0LpofXOD4rPA12OYbwdvhYoZKzJMOSW4bmJZ wLa9bNoKlNsfpyHOGG0lZ3YdK87lsnKdnlLvNvtai5Ujh1aWIvzctEw+KR74IUC+ 0LR6TOYR860ncuezqmtVRctDSluXim9oAIGWncelHM/kvjlDgLC4mUOuOxDg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1738006738; x=1738093138; bh=VM6p+2yEp8KcVqfM0W+1VHbAsub6NI9EGya Q9R1Gbbc=; b=ZYcZPdK8YR+i9GUIH6awGlAULacIzMKtMeURej8MMNFVCjobnol CS2xj9i6sCcslb1hxLKPKqbJzV29qGgwSbZ1B15a5AChdGHHC9WMtkA9Fprk4hU6 R/p2tRpt7eqcdMY2OaZpykDaMovVuJ+6Tuz4E3hOleNtCJ9WniBNgdIrOCl30uM/ mUpnZJtECdyNMW3sxbpxqmbFAjuyDqT53LbdhVuHqHmI9afAqZ7LIwXjAVLwpqRc nZCTp1E6eeqpHdt+vujadZJe7wToOXcp9CNUZXZhpHYc3gCYLtnGFeYfC5FJk/ex 2AJf7UnixeJ9Df2PpJo3uvQYgGse0IZrYNw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudejgedgudegtdegucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishhtih grnhdrtghouhguvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghr rdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhhnhgtrghikeeisehgmhgrihhlrd gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgih lhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhunhhshhhinhgvsehsuhhnshhhihhnvggtoh drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:38:57 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, John Cai , Patrick Steinhardt , Taylor Blau , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce a "promisor-remote" capability In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:05:40 +0100") References: <20240910163000.1985723-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20241206124248.160494-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:38:56 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Christian Couder writes: >> or is it merely >> because the way the feature is verified assumes that the multi-pack >> index is not used, even though the protocol exchange, capability >> selection, and the actual behaviour adjustment for the capability >> are all working just fine? I am assuming it is the latter, but just >> to make sure we know where we stand... > > Let me know if you need more than the above, Hard to say if I got a test script when I asked for a simple yes-or-no question. > but I think it's fair for > now to just use: > > GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX=0 > GIT_TEST_MULTI_PACK_INDEX_WRITE_INCREMENTAL=0 > > at the top of the tests, like it's done in the version 4 of this > series I will send soon. Doesn't it mean that people should not use multi-pack-index or incremental writing with this feature? If we cannot make both of them work together even in our controlled testing environment, how would the users know what combinations of features are safe to use and what are incompatible? That sounds far from fair at least to me. I see Taylor is included in the Cc: list, so hopefully, we'll get the anomalies you found in the multi-pack stuff resolved and see how well these two things would work together. Thanks.