Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I know this is a corner case, but because it has a valid use case, > maybe we should do something about it. Immediate reaction is to add an > option to send no "have"s. But maybe you guys have better ideas. This and similar corner cases were discussed in very early days of Git. One interesting idea floated back then but was not pursued was to dig and send have's sparsely and then back up. Instead of digging and sending _all_ commits in a contiguous history, after sending the tip, you skip the commits from the history before sending the next one, and progressively make the skipping larger (e.g. Fibonacci, or exponential). You need to remember what you sent and for each of what you sent its topologically-oldest descendant you sent earlier that you heard the other side does not have. Then, when you get an Ack, you know a stretch of history between a commit that is known to be common (i.e. the one you heard an Ack just now) and its descendant that is known only to you (i.e. the topologically-oldest one you remember that you did send and they didn't say is common). At that point, you and the other end can bisect that range. -- 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