git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Request for detailed documentation of git pack protocol

From
Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date
Jun 3, 2009, 20:24 UTC
Message-ID
<20090603202429.GO3355@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To
<200906032220.00238.jnareb@gmail.com>
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> 
> >>> Oh, and send-pack/receive-pack protocol now has ".have" refs [...]
> 
> So the output (for fetch or clone) would look like this for repository
> with alternates (shared object database):
No.  fetch/clone (aka fetch-pack/upload-pack protocl) does not use
the .have feature.
 
> Does it matter for fetch, or is it important only for pushing?

Because yea, it only matters for pushing. Actually, in the case of fetch, we shouldn't advertise what our alternate has, the client should just fetch from the alternate.

In push it matters because the client wants to know what the remote
has, so it can trim the pack down to only the new objects, to reduce
transfer time.
 
> BTW. do "include-tag" capability MUST NOT (REQUIRED) be send if there
> are not tags (tag objects?), or just SHOULD NOT (RECOMMENDED), or even
> MAY NOT (OPTIONAL).  GitHub server doesn't send it if there are no 
> tags...

Clients MAY always send include-tag, hardcoding it into a request. The decision for a client to request include-tag only has to do with the client's desires for tag data, whether or not a server had advertised objects in the refs/tags/* namespace.

Clients SHOULD NOT send include-tag if remote.name.tagopt was set to --no-tags, as the client doesn't want tag data.

Servers MUST accept include-tag without error or warning, even if the server does not understand or support the option.

Servers SHOULD pack the tags if their referrant is packed and the client has requested include-tag.

Clients MUST be prepared for the case where a server has ignored include-tag and has not actually sent tags in the pack. In such cases the client SHOULD issue a subsequent fetch to acquire the tags that include-tag would have otherwise given the client.

-- 
Shawn.
Previous: Jakub NarebskiNext: Jakub Narebski
Message 29 of 66 in “Request for detailed documentation of git pack protocol”
  1. Jakub NarebskiMay 12, 2009
  2. Shawn O. PearceMay 12, 2009
  3. Jakub NarebskiMay 14, 2009
  4. Shawn O. PearceMay 14, 2009
  5. Andreas EricssonMay 14, 2009
  6. Linus TorvaldsMay 15, 2009
  7. Clemens BuchacherMay 15, 2009
  8. Nicolas PitreMay 14, 2009
  9. Jakub NarebskiMay 14, 2009
  10. Scott ChaconMay 14, 2009
  11. Shawn O. PearceMay 14, 2009
  12. Jakub NarebskiMay 14, 2009
  13. A Large Angry SCMMay 15, 2009
  14. Ealdwulf WuffingaMay 15, 2009
  15. Jakub NarebskiJun 2, 2009
  16. Shawn O. PearceJun 2, 2009
  17. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  18. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  19. Junio C HamanoJun 3, 2009
  20. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  21. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  22. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  23. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  24. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  25. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  26. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  27. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  28. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  29. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  30. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  31. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  32. Junio C HamanoJun 3, 2009
  33. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  34. Andreas EricssonJun 4, 2009
  35. Junio C HamanoJun 4, 2009
  36. Scott ChaconJun 6, 2009
  37. Junio C HamanoJun 6, 2009
  38. Jakub NarebskiJun 6, 2009
  39. Tony FinchJun 3, 2009
  40. Junio C HamanoJun 3, 2009
  41. Johannes SixtJun 3, 2009
  42. Robin H. JohnsonJun 3, 2009
  43. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  44. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  45. Tony FinchJun 3, 2009
  46. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  47. Tony FinchJun 3, 2009
  48. Jakub NarebskiJun 4, 2009
  49. Tony FinchJun 4, 2009
  50. Shawn O. PearceJun 4, 2009
  51. Jakub NarebskiJun 3, 2009
  52. Shawn O. PearceJun 3, 2009
  53. Jakub NarebskiJun 4, 2009
  54. Shawn O. PearceJun 4, 2009
  55. Shawn O. PearceJun 5, 2009
  56. Jakub NarebskiJun 5, 2009
  57. Jakub NarebskiJun 5, 2009
  58. Comments pack protocol description in "Git Community Book" (second round)Jakub Narebski, Jun 6, 2009
  59. Scott ChaconJun 6, 2009
  60. Jakub NarebskiJun 7, 2009
  61. Shawn O. PearceJun 7, 2009
  62. Shawn O. PearceJun 7, 2009
  63. Jakub NarebskiJun 13, 2009
  64. Shawn O. PearceJun 7, 2009
  65. Jakub NarebskiJun 9, 2009
  66. Shawn O. PearceJun 9, 2009

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.