Re: With big repos and slower connections, git clone can be hard to work with

From: ellie <el@horse64.org>
Date: Jun 8, 2024, 09:40 UTC
Message-ID: <bc030171-70fa-41cf-945a-2d20bf237372@horse64.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240608084323.GB2390433@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, and I assume this is a naive suggestion that may not work in some way: but couldn't git somehow retain all the objects it already has fully downloaded cached? And then otherwise start over cleanly (and automatically), but just get the objects it already has from the local cache? In practice, that might already be enough to get through a longer clone despite occasional hiccups.

Sorry, I'm really not qualified to make good suggestions, it's just that the current situation feels frustrating as an outside user.

Regards,

Ellie

On 6/8/24 10:43 AM, Jeff King wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 02:46:38AM +0200, ellie wrote:
> 
>> The deepening worked perfectly, thank you so much! I hope a resume will
>> still be considered however, if even just to help out newcomers.
> 
> Because the packfile to send the user is created on the fly, making a
> clone fully resumable is tricky (a second clone may get an equivalent
> but slightly different pack due to new objects entering the repo, or
> even raciness between threads).
> 
> One strategy people have worked on is for servers to point clients at
> static packfiles (which _do_ remain byte-for-byte identical, and can be
> resumed) to get some of the objects. But it requires some scheme on the
> server side to decide when and how to create those packfiles. So while
> there is support inside Git itself for this idea (both on the server and
> client side), I don't know of any servers where it is in active use.
> 
> -Peff