Re: [PATCH 00/10] RFC Partial Clone and Fetch

From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2017, 14:13 UTC
Message-ID: <d8740193-9f12-84f1-1d9f-cebd6125640b@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <7ce6e14f-b2b1-19f3-916a-9ed1307a3403@jeffhostetler.com>

On 3/16/2017 5:43 PM, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

>
>
> On 3/9/2017 3:18 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> Overall, this fetch/clone approach seems reasonable to me, except
>> perhaps some unanswered questions (some of which are also being
>> discussed elsewhere):
>>  - does the server need to tell us of missing blobs?
>>  - if yes, does the server need to tell us their file sizes?
>
> File sizes are a nice addition.  For example, with a virtual
> file system, a "ls -l" can lie and tell you the sizes of the
> yet-to-be-populated files.

Nevermind the "ls -l" case, I forgot about the need for the client to display the size of the (possibly) smudged file, rather than the actual blob size.