From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:20:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Git-aware HTTP transport
Message-ID: <48B6DE7A.1020207@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080828171052.GC21072@spearce.org>

Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> It appears that you really meant "Binary", as opposed to "Hexadecimal"
>>> that show-ref example illustrate, judging from the later 3,276 number.
>>> I'd prefer hexadecimal here.
>>>
>> I *think* the "native" git protocol uses binary here.  It makes sense to  
>> be consistent, to allow them to share code?
> 
> No, the native protocol is horribly verbose here:
> 
> 	0032want ac3abe10ed54d512fbbaeb7cef19972eedd8e4a8
> 	0032want 404c3bbec34f5c65c5024c856eed4dbbfc27831e
> 	0032want 9bcc7aff6095549c1425aef6ca0034c47189705d
> 	0032have 471287a3c311e486206d3c6ff94faf3dfffc736c
> 	0032have 48f27055a4fa5f4da8234f44808f0b0c70629218
> 	0032have d4cc612f218b3dd3b831e3b976bf85165cd4f3d4
> 	...
> 
> so its doing it in hex, and its using 10 bytes of "framing" for
> every SHA-1 it sends as each is sent in its own pkt-line with the
> have/want header.
> 

Hm.  It's probably not enough data to worry significantly about.

	-hpa