Re: Resumable git clone?
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 2, 2016, 09:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8D69ieHSKTFC=0hsz1Ss+bgajxXmcyf4Ma7mrjWrp_NXA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq4mcp5lij.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes: > >> I don't think it's worth the trouble and ambiguity to send abbreviated >> object names over the wire. > > Yup. My unscientific experiment was to show that the list would be > far smaller than the actual transfer and between full binary and > full textual object name representations there would not be much > meaningful difference--you seem to have a better design sense to > grasp that point ;-)
It may matter, depending on your user target. In order to progress a fetch/pull, I need to get at least one object before my connection goes down. Picking a random blob in the "large file" range in linux-2.6, fs/nls/nls_cp950.c, 500kb. Let's assume the worst case that the blob is transferred gzipped, not deltified, that's about 100k. Assume again I'm a lazy linux lurker who only fetches after every release, the rev-list output between v4.2 and v4.3 is 6M. Even if we transfer this list over http with compression, the list is 2.9M, way bigger than one blob transfer. Which raises the bar to my successful fetch.
-- Duy