Re: Git in Outreachy December 2019?

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Sep 23, 2019, 20:38 UTC
Message-ID: <20190923203854.171170-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190923191509.GC21344@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Show 9 quoted lines

> I think this is an OK level of detail. I'm not sure quite sure about the
> goal of the project, though. In particular:
> 
>   - I'm not clear what we'd hope to gain. I.e., what richer information
>     would we want to pass back and forth between index-pack and the
>     other processes? It might also be more efficient, but I'm not sure
>     it's measurably so (we save a single process, and we save some pipe
>     traffic, but the sideband demuxer would probably end up passing it
>     over a self-pipe anyway).

I didn't have any concrete ideas so I didn't include those, but some unrefined ideas:

 - index-pack has the CLI option to specify a message to be written into
   the .promisor file, but in my patch to write fetched refs to
   .promisor [1], I ended up making fetch-pack.c write the information
   because I didn't know how many refs were going to be written (and I
   didn't want to bump into CLI argument length limits). If we had this
   feature, I might have been able to pass a callback to index-pack that
   writes the list of refs once we have the fd into .promisor,
   eliminating some code duplication (but I haven't verified this).

 - In your reply [2] to the above [1], you mentioned the possibility of
   keeping a list of cutoff points. One way of doing this, as I state in
   [3], is my original suggestion back in 2017 of one such
   repository-wide list. If we do this, it would be better for
   fetch-pack to handle this instead of index-pack, and it seems more
   efficient to me to have index-pack be able to pass objects to
   fetch-pack as they are inflated instead of fetch-pack rereading the
   compressed forms on disk (but again, I haven't verified this).

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20190826214737.164132-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/ [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905070153.GE21450@sigill.intra.peff.net/ [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/20190905183926.137490-1-jonathantanmy@google.com/

There are also the debuggability improvements of not having to deal with 2 processes.

Show 5 quoted lines

>   - index-pack is prone to dying on bad input, and we wouldn't want it
>     to take down the outer fetch-pack or receive-pack, which are what
>     produce useful messages to the user. That's something that could be
>     fixed as part of the libification, but I suspect the control flow
>     might be a little tricky.

Good point.

Show 10 quoted lines

>   - we don't always call index-pack, but sometimes call unpack-objects.
>     I suppose we could continue to call an external unpack-objects in
>     that path, but that eliminates the utility of having richer
>     communication if we sometimes have to take the "dumb" path. A while
>     ago I took a stab at teaching index-pack to unpack. It works, but
>     there are a few ugly bits, as discussed in:
> 
>       https://github.com/peff/git/commit/7df82454a855281e9c147f3023225f8a6f72e303
> 
>     Maybe that would be worth making part of the project?

I'm reluctant to do so because I don't want to increase the scope too much - although if my project has relatively narrow scope for an Outreachy project, we can do so. As for eliminating the utility of having richer communication, I don't think so, because in the situations where we require richer communication (right now, situations to do with partial clone), we specifically run index-pack anyway.