Re: [PATCH v2 15/16] index-pack: use nr_objects_final as sha1_table size

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:
> 
> >> > ...  I was 
> >> > wondering if some kind of prefix to the pack stream could be inserted 
> >> > onto the wire when sending a pack v4.  Something like:
> >> >
> >> > 'T', 'H', 'I', 'N', <actual_number_of_sent_objects_in_network_order>
> >> >
> >> > This 8-byte prefix would simply be discarded by index-pack after being 
> >> > parsed.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >> 
> >> I do not think it is _too_ bad if the meter jumped from 92% to 100%
> >> when we finish reading from the other end ;-), as long as we can
> >> reliably tell that we read the right thing.
> >
> > Sure.  but eventually people will complain about this.  So while we're 
> > about to introduce a new pack format anyway, better think of this little 
> > cosmetic detail now when it can be included in the pack v4 capability 
> > negociation.
> 
> Oh, I completely agree on that part.  When we send a self-contained
> pack, would we send nothing?  That is, should the receiving end
> expect and rely on that the sending end will send a thin pack and
> never a fat pack when asked to send a thin pack (and vice versa)?
> 
> Also should we make the "even though we have negotiated the protocol
> parameters, after enumerating the objects and deciding what the pack
> stream would look like, we have a bit more information to tell you"
> the sending side gives the receiver extensible?  I am wondering if
> that prefix needs something like "end of prefix" marker (or "here
> comes N-bytes worth of prefix information" upfront); we probably do
> not need it, as the capability exchange will determine what kind of
> information will be sent (e.g. "actual objects in the thin pack data
> stream").