From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (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 5680819F111 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727110585; cv=none; b=Vo1Ds1QeqGGJWvgo4sS0FGuS1DorHtSYNcp4cCLB4YUj95i8LubgTNE5aQZqEROCv+vLtVI9yjWogYITwL9wJEo4gi6rAPQ8/8Ppz6Zcv8tGJ22pURAI28Q0BL2ukYEyzcV1+ennOQFoIZEOdiBf/CUl2wJbL1X4O+CgcCQDvvk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727110585; c=relaxed/simple; bh=83kL+9Nc8NrlV9/cDwjRCGJpW9ZWDUAK3wJpLRlkTfA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jd0uJU/8EB8vfa0bnXgUGXfvfB3eV3HxigHbmX7ZaF2fTVC3EEME81/pCzdYXb2nP7yAu++WtxMtelf227DzeJstpLPQY6lH6Iiecl6NDu019NNyLp8SFNYZHwipCsxcyV8cRhQ/0Tr4fh7RLH3Xy8Lxr4SqM1sBAky10J7tj5w= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=vu7zLyoL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="vu7zLyoL" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BAF22424; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:56:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=83kL+9Nc8NrlV9/cDwjRCGJpW9ZWDUAK3wJpLR lkTfA=; b=vu7zLyoLEtjQuBbUn9z19B2HZ2QHWZKAkWRJh8kVf4AOa1nSBfmU8P CglZ8zNAJjQSrUNEyWAspBEXO68K5lXL6kCeMO/V78zkWpQGatI2JtlOMXtbTiLU SwHhk99Sl9H7dZSl93ZDSY6hXGJ6YyJUDyH8WqgHgZ1gtAH3ULuxk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5079B22423; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:56:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAF3022422; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:56:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Christian Couder , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, peff@peff.net, ps@pks.im, me@ttaylorr.com, johncai86@gmail.com, newren@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] [RFC] Path-walk API and applications In-Reply-To: <6b672771-4016-49e8-a045-0a48bc8c1522@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Sun, 22 Sep 2024 21:22:59 -0400") References: <53dc17f8-82e5-40fa-81b7-af89f987928b@gmail.com> <6b672771-4016-49e8-a045-0a48bc8c1522@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:56:20 -0700 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C2A7DB5A-79CC-11EF-9EC1-2BAEEB2EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Derrick Stolee writes: > ... I can see an argument for either direction: having a new hash > algorithm provides a smaller change to get most of the results for the > full repack case, but gets worse performance in many push scenarios. > This is the point of an RFC, to get questions like this worked out based > on the "big picture" view of everything. Exactly. We might want to use the series as an example in our developer docs on how to propose a large-ish effort. > Perhaps I should pause the --full-name-hash topic and focus on getting > the --path-walk topic up and running. I am curious to hear from folks > who are currently running Git servers about their thoughts on these > trade-offs and potential uses in their environment. My needs on the > client side are solved by the --path-walk approach. Yeah, such third-party inputs would be very useful. Thanks.