On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I'd like to suggest the following line from the original patch: >>> >>> full-pack integer:: >>> 1 if the request was considered a full clone, 0 if it was a >>> partial update (fetch) >> >> If it is all "want" and no "have", it is clone or fetch into empty >> repository. If additionaly "want"s cover all refs, it is a clone. >> No need to pass this information: it can be derived. > > Well, not exactly. > > Here is an iffy RFC patch. Iffy not in the sense that its implementation > is questionable, but in the sense that I am not really convinced if the > distinction between fetching some (or in the worst case, most) but not all > refs, and fetching full set of refs, into an empty repository is something > worth making. > > Does anybody from GitHub have any input? Is there something that can > still improved to suit GitHub's needs? >From GitHub's perspective, we'd treat any clone or fetch into an empty repo as a clone operation, whether or not that included all of the refs that were available. For us, the distinction between full and partial clones is too nuanced to warrant additional code. I'd be happy with the previous incarnation of the post-upload-pack that simply sends the HAVEs and WANTs. Tom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html