Re: [PATCH 0/2] negotiator: improve recent behavior + docs

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2018, 20:25 UTC
Message-ID: <20180801202545.204151-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180801151835.9182-1-avarab@gmail.com>

> I think 01/02 in this patch series implements something that's better
> & more future-proof.

Thanks. Both patches are:
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>

A small note:

> -	packfile; any other value instructs Git to use the default algorithm
> +	packfile; The default is "default" which instructs Git to use the default algorithm

I think we generally don't capitalize words after semicolons.

Thanks for noticing that the check of fetch.negotiationAlgorithm only happens when a negotiation actually occurs - before your patches, it didn't really matter because we tolerated anything, but now we do. I think this is fine - as far as I know, Git commands generally only read the configs relevant to them, and if fetch.negotiationAlgorithm is not relevant in a certain situation, we don't need to read it.

> That's awesome. This is exactly what I wanted, this patch series also
> fixes another small issue in 02/02; which is that the docs for the two
> really should cross-link to make these discoverable from one another.

That's a good idea; thanks for doing it.

Show 15 quoted lines

> I.e. the way I'm doing this is I add all the remotes first, then I
> fetch them all in parallel, but because the first time around I don't
> have anything for that remote (and they don't share any commits) I
> need to fake it up and pretend to be fetching from a repo that has
> just one commit.
> 
> It would be better if I could somehow say that I don't mind that the
> ref doesn't exist, but currently you either error out with this, or
> ignore the glob, depending on the mode.
> 
> So I want this, but can't think of a less shitty UI than:
> 
>     git fetch --negotiation-tip=$REF --negotiation-tip-error-handling=missing-ref-means-no-want
> 
> Or something equally atrocious, do you have any better ideas?

If you wanted to do this, it seems better to me to just declare a "null" negotiation algorithm that does not perform any negotiation at all.