Re: RFC: Resumable clone based on hybrid "smart" and "dumb" HTTP
- From
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
- Date
- Feb 11, 2016, 18:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAJo=hJt=hYf27bTcuyZEsn1w5CAXC=BoFfCcLGQ7ZmXe-g4SKg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqfuwzykr5.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes: > >> I really like this design. I'm tempted to implement it (since it >> lacks a bunch of the downsides of clone.bundle). > > Just to see people are not stepping on each others toe, implementing > slightly different components in parallel based on the same theme to > solve the same problem, it may be beneficial to have a list of a bit > more detailed breakdown of the necessary parts. > > I think possible small first steps include: > > * A new "--split-header" option to "git bundle" that allows the > command to write out two files; > > * An update to the "bundle" transport so that it understand the new > split bundle format (i.e. when you have base.bndl that refers to > pack-deadbeef.pack, you can still say "git clone base.bndl" and > "git ls-remote base.bndl"); > > * A new "--bundle-header" option to "git index-pack", which makes > it to write out the bundle header file that references the > resulting packfile in addition to the pack .idx file (this should > also be able to "fix" thin pack, and also by keeping track of the > actual "foreign" objects not just number of them, compute and > record the list of prerequisite objects in the resulting bundle > header file). > > Am I on the right track? Assuming I am, anything I missed?
--bundle-header option for pack-objects so that repack/gc can create the matching .info file?
I waffled on the URL in the capabilities line, but I think Peff convinced me earlier in the thread that its reasonably safe to do. So this split bundle with header URL in the capabilities sounds like a good approach, its just a matter of implementation. :)