Re: [PATCH 2/3] Support for partial HTTP transfers

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 27, 2005, 22:24 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfyrqywrv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050927171912.GC1377@reactrix.com>

Nick Hengeveld <nickh@reactrix.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> True.  What I meant by "interesting" is that two is reading from
>> what one is writing.
>
> Excellent point.  Given the potential for problems related to this
> issue or to compressed representation, would it make sense to enable
> partial transfers via a command-line option and leave the feature
> disabled by default?

Here is what I think. Multiple transfers at the same time, if it becomes problem in pratcice, should be prevented at the upper layer anyway, so this "interesting" problem is a moot point. So I'd say let's not worry about that.

Doing partial transfer support for packs and indices would be more useful addition to your code than dealing with the above -- packs are much bigger than individual objects and would get much bigger benefit from restartable download.

Different compressed representation is just a theoretical curiosity and we do not know if it is a problem in practice. As long as you can detect the situation and die, it would be OK, I think.