Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] promisor-remote: implement promisor_remote_get_direct()

> > +int promisor_remote_get_direct(const struct object_id *oids, int oid_nr)
> > +{
> > +     struct promisor_remote *o;
> > +
> > +     promisor_remote_init();
> > +
> > +     for (o = promisors; o; o = o->next) {
> > +             if (fetch_objects(o->remote_name, oids, oid_nr) < 0)
> > +                     continue;
> > +             return 0;
>
> Suppose the caller asks to fetch 3 objects, A, B and C, from two
> promisors.  The first promisor can give you A and B but cannot give
> you C.  The second promisor only can give you C.
>
> Does fetch_objects() return failure after attempting to fetch A, B
> and C from the first promisor?

> Then we go on to the second promisor
> but do we ask all three?  That would mean the second promisor will
> also fail because it cannot give you A and B, and then the whole
> thing would fail.  It would be nicer if the mechanism would allow us
> to fetch what is still missing from later promisor, perhaps.

> As the original "fetch" protocol only allows you to fetch a pack
> with everything you asked for in it, instead of feeding you a pack
> with best effort, I think the answer to the above is "it is very
> hard to improve over what we have here", but people may have
> interesting ideas ;-)

> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return -1;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Adding trailing blank line at the end?