From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 4FCEC2D61B for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717235014; cv=none; b=FeL5ofLOaEA1vig0wAp1fS2PjZR0M7sNpHs6qf83EraMyeq74hWkwblw9IhNWwg3XsXJ/g4F0Knzh7hQvxVZuOfhz16L3HlZIqYhgbiqLwQ48xAaxLBdaxj0vR/UrVJUDyFh4BEC+MyIbFh5H8Fm6+kaI9k8YQyJoiyIr+GHqZk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717235014; c=relaxed/simple; bh=H+eP1la8Qb3k40ZycONw3rhzBQCpCuRdlHTGZIm42nM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bErSuQlTdCsGFmvTUGX9GtJch4CdrRIjdK/CxO/tfFGOzidjTzQw02hiVLqhAkAUZFEdQfuVR4r/x/YT2EWJqUO2d130k0vx0Q1t4ZXKddREVkC9Pb1v9ml03dJlO7R7RG3IGQALAr/aJnbs2NASjLo7cUriNT73Pb+cAZe4qp0= 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=mJZCMjhs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="mJZCMjhs" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81CE19A9D; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 05:43:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@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=H+eP1la8Qb3k40ZycONw3rhzBQCpCuRdlHTGZI m42nM=; b=mJZCMjhs0HLGVzaguMNd1zYi/m/jOEspLu03C4RnhrOrxaP3rgSS4j m4ZSySuxyUPRQRxhWSVLe/YsMdzTEqgmjPnPUdMi7cOa2gXa10bKuCcBEWHHaFxI iWujFGf2I6sYWtVu3WI3GvV+YwdYo6b10tLLJnZxUmhPwuPIV1R60= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF90419A9C; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 05:43:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCFA319A9B; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 05:43:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, John Cai , Patrick Steinhardt , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] upload-pack: allow configuring a missing-action In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Fri, 31 May 2024 22:43:33 +0200") References: <20221012135114.294680-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20240515132543.851987-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20240515132543.851987-4-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 02:43:27 -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: 66881F40-1FFB-11EF-8D9A-ACC938F0AE34-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Christian Couder writes: >> Hmph. If C asks a partial clone and S is willing to be the promisor >> for C, S is essentially saying that it will serve C any objects on >> demand that are reachable from any object it served C in the past, >> forever, no? It might not get from S initially all the objects, but >> if it wants later, S promises to let C have them. > > This promise is not broken, as S can still get the missing objects > from X and then pass them to C. There is even the following test case > in the patch that shows that it works when uploadpack.missingAction is > unset (and thus default to "error" which is the same as how things > currently work): And the whole point of that configuration is to make it easier for S to break that promise, no? uploadPack.missingAction is set at S and is not under control of C, right? > So S keeps its promise to let C have any object through S if C wants. > It's just that having large objects through S (instead of directly > from X) is not a good idea ... > ... > So if it's Ok for other features to require an additional server to > fulfill the promise, why is it not Ok in the case of S + X? I am questioning the design that does not give C any say in the decision if it is a good idea or not to ask S relay large objects. S unilaterally decides that it does not want to and does not serve such large objects to C, and without even checking with C if it can reach X to fetch directly, silently assuming that C will do so, right? It is quite different from the contract between C and S in the simpler world. > I don't understand why you compare this to a "broken" implementation > of promisor remotes. What could then be a non-broken one that would > store large blobs on a separate server in your opinion? I am really > interested in answers to this question. It's not a rhetorical one. You as S would tell C "I want you to go to X because I am not serving objects X and Y". Or at least make sure that C knows about X before deciding to omit what X ought to have. Not doing anything and silently assuming that C will get them from elsewhere is simply irresponsible, especially if C is not even told about X over the protocol, no?