From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (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 6FFB9339395 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 16:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786206219; cv=none; b=OLa27NQ/Su/j9/+08YBxB9XF3fuyFJ/cBXEQwjmIR3IokQMdpm8NdWyGibTSNGOQOBVukPnHXuEuaqbsCqV+JowNF2K+7mm2haWgcJbfncplLJw4jDnVBdG5RKrjI6UQbdzPExfg6f2Tdj0k4zgOFQlLvakW3TcaelJ/6UgAaYk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786206219; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Duyva9Ia6T41YAgxse/t2aP0qLbn1gXaNF6FQV8XteI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mS7U19i7UQ1wQf91qyx1pMoRbV+VCS6AcrhvQl/VpXHMsVT4UyifhMvLnSVFTHL4gDLZN/BYVL28PlJ6PacP6/8QeNOkPez+DvblSZnFhFr5l3PnWwG1zJE4wKs4euOOrdQN3rSfZHLg9usLm0mfD5yzdsTjS5GkK2k8cEwY1Ww= 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=YHQamAP4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=BFrMkWzX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 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="YHQamAP4"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="BFrMkWzX" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E1D7A0050; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 12:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Aug 2026 12:23:37 -0400 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=1786206217; x=1786292617; bh=l/ehOTb5t0 C64YAwQM56QtVYsUSBYUAo3gTOtQsXnck=; b=YHQamAP4WgnjMSLpCukwAuI5/M DlQzy1KDt042H6wPZV0b5yEtQIO+N7Asy1oVcsKzhU7DXQcLxaimU1qqgfwyQecq FmXRNvYA4UWND2+zBh96rKwUWVAqu5TtbhARkJ69P0UBbvNCkjjtFMHwOUr4wYa2 jSeIgGAQgsqyCHb3wbc+UjOHEyYNPH9r0zr8mnq1eGNiTq5X33nCbuOVJ7/sCpq5 XbxPsZ8SCSrFep2oLbYhyl8hXKHiIgRj/QhzuHvOkvWMpiYLZQ6kxwYiICpXu555 gWvXy7eeE5bWMPG9Mn7WOxrAzeNSH5uWf1ahEY2TNJ58yZT+od7B18yPBXew== 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= 1786206217; x=1786292617; bh=l/ehOTb5t0C64YAwQM56QtVYsUSBYUAo3gT OtQsXnck=; b=BFrMkWzXhcKDoTkbi4Ko7DKlqcyWNuT9M5Oi75fKu/+anQrEYQm XRVxSOFnwY743/0tfmgIFiIQqrR6qhHyKEO/+KBFefUN5/YOKb3olRw/tCi7r/2M +9ue+lUTb9eRbYtFwziXqjHkMG0wmyKbV+hL0j/fghyIb47e5XSg3yYV15TcGgw3 /1Cptzvf4s8ouENwJ+KE8wLCXasyonmqXZxtiD8kcIh4ApJMms27f1OsjsPXLxYi z1shkz/oXM+boBRwWGfEZTth0KAozT0wnrQhEfYq3hjH1L0aL3IHYwo77fdesI8a jMqf4dDYdGyjpS3B38bz5Py8bdHs7EwbKXA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFqHz7fY+8jJVlw6Hke6mOQmR3QO1IgcHz26m0sXJeyv0eRENsKqMR5xK1FZ2NgsV 25oaSopW7DCIS9KJjP9gAIFA+ltuQv8dWygyOytdtYShSdOwXAoloAjDqj5W+HweYZr/Yp O8V+D+vFKGxI10xN2pEFRTRZ2pMvCB5ha1zz1XXehbrQCbrzVrKM/x7Ct+nqjpwUw2MrwX Va/R8LZxd2dTxZEv+9ybgufVB4RcCtnDROWdCK8Xuoi11Fckk5gjYnYdade7uQR079ofX0 hm487arh+nj8Xqmwjd65h8A1Dam7ieHWcXnw/btRII11+dQ+fbD8uqGi1m7EKqtrthfUEQ nDhmmc02mV4DXSJvY6bXDhcuQO9ddVAkIFrFPGh5AzOac5BEtHZo2XaNpOwwbNiAqczfx1 d7Et4M78JqJidaTq64kh7WDoWVJyc41HBcphBezyjpRmaX5aoo14ifJzuCPQYAk88pBWQP EpIFrxJeqEAbnJUwmSFS5oYZInpuj1z8FQJApqDPVD8KS33BLm27iqKoSeIKekoCuSEgK7 kvAyqk/dcKYT+NZWEEklOzVj3pM7heyeQm4V3N+iA04EoUNDRsD0/04IYSJL87Vf+8CRNB VIZvPE2PbbgHoBje7vFxTw5FMP8iC43ikWoC8VhXFR0uRXqHjpL0SqfjCfog X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 8 Aug 2026 12:23:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Ted Nyman , git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, ps@pks.im, karthik.188@gmail.com, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net, avarab@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] packfile URIs: support concurrent downloads In-Reply-To: <20260801140255.GC2041176@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 1 Aug 2026 10:02:55 -0400") References: <20260801140255.GC2041176@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2026 09:23:34 -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 Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:41:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Ted Nyman writes: >> >> > Changes since v5: >> > >> > * Split the existing double-close fix, HTTP 416 handling, generic >> > concurrent-download fix, and Windows sharing fix into separate >> > patches. >> > * Replace the FIFO-based concurrent HTTP 416 test with a standalone >> > completed-partial test. Besides simplifying the test, this covers the >> > non-concurrent interrupted-download case directly. >> > * Keep the final production code unchanged. >> > >> > Each patch passes t5550-http-fetch-dumb.sh. The final series also passes >> > t5702-protocol-v2.sh, and the overlapping-download test passes 240 runs >> > with 12 parallel stress jobs. >> > >> > The v5 discussion is at: >> > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1785047139.git.tnyman@openai.com/ >> >> Is everybody happy with this new iteration? >> >> The design of the re-download feature itself, as far as I >> understand, was favourably accepted from the earliest iteration, and >> now the CI breakages were corrected with the latest iteration of the >> tests, so we should be in pretty good shape, I presume. > > Yeah, sorry, I hadn't had time to look carefully. I just did so, and it > all looks good to me. v6 splits the patches in a way that (at least to > my mind) make the trickiest parts of the logic easier to follow. Thanks.