Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull

From: Tristan Wibberley <maihem@maihem.org>
Date: May 16, 2005, 22:22 UTC
Message-ID: <1116282131.6141.8.camel__31554.9111379825$1116283578$gmane$org@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20050515124042.GE13024@pasky.ji.cz>

On Sun, 2005-05-15 at 14:40 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Dear diary, on Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:22:19PM CEST, I got a letter
> where "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com> told me that...
> > 
> > 	I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous
> > suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips.
> > If you're worried about queuing too many http/1.1 requests, the client
> > could adopt a policy of not having more than a certain number of
> > requests outstanding or perhaps even making a new http connection
> > after a certain number of requests to avoid starving other clients
> > when the number of clients doing one of these transfers exceeds the
> > number of threads that the http server uses.
> 
> The problem is that to fetch a revision tree, you have to
> 
> 	send request for commit A
> 	receive commit A
> 	look at commit A for list of its parents
> 	send request for the parents
> 	receive the parents
> 	look inside for list of its parents
> 	...

What about IMAP? You could ask for just the parents for several messages (via a message header), then start asking for message bodies (with the juicy stuff in). You could also ask for a list of the new commits then ask for each of the bodies (several at a time). Not as good as a "Just give me all new data", but an *awful* lot more efficient than HTTP. And very flexible. You just need to map changesets to IMAP messages (if such a mapping can actually make sense :)

Prolly a bit more work though.

-- Tristan Wibberley

The opinions expressed in this message are my own opinions and not those of my employer.