Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 12:32 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I'll queue these for now, but I doubt the wisdom of this series, >> given that the ship has already sailed long time ago. >> >> Currently, no third-party implementation of a receiving end can >> accept thin push, because "thin push" is not a capability that needs >> to be checked by the current clients. People will have to wait >> until the clients with 2/2 patch are widely deployed before starting >> to use such a receiving end that is incapable of "thin push". >> >> Wouldn't the world be a better place if instead they used that time >> waiting to help such a third-party receiving end to implement "thin >> push" support? >> > > Support in the code isn't always enough. The particular case that > brought this on is one where the index-pack implementation can deal with > thin packs just fine. > > This particular service takes the pack which the client sent and does > post-processing on it to store it elsewhere. During the receive-pack > equivalent, there is no git object db that it can query for the missing > base objects. I realise this is pretty a unusual situation. OK, I agree that it sounds quite niche-y, but it still is sensible. If a receiving end does not want to (this includes "it is incapable of doing so", but does not have to be limited to) complete a thin pack, the series will give it such an option in the longer term. Thanks. -- 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