From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:55:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] pkt-line: add functions to read/write flush terminated packet streams
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xrYM_r+Q_27hWM2FwbreV90AqPgoiH-qPZN0hoPiHpKhQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvayojx9e.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> What is wrong about that?  4*80k = 320kB overhead for length fields
> to transfer 5GB worth of data?  I do not think it is worth worrying
> about it.
>
> But I am more surprised by seeing that "why not a single huge
> packet" suggestion immediately after you talked about "without the
> possibility to intervene".  They do not seem to be remotely related;
> in fact, they are going into opposite directions.
>
> Puzzled.

Stefan's argument to me is thus "If we're already going to ignore
sideband packets here, why not go all the way and make variable length
packets and send a single packet of a maximum length? Doing thus will
solve some set of future problems nicely and makes this code easier."

I'm not sure I agree myself, but that's the logic as I understand it.