Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This somehow looks like a good thing to do even in production. Am I >> mistaken? > > Yes, that's true. If this patch set stalls (for whatever reason), I'll > spin this off into an independent patch. ... which may be needed. As to the main goal of this topic, I think the "ask by refname (with glob)" is very good thing to start the "client speaks first" v2 protocol, as it would allow us to reduce the size of the initial advertisement for common cases (i.e. remote.<name>.fetch is likely to list only refs/heads/* on the left hand side of a refspec). And adding this to v1 is probably a good first step to make sure the code that is currently used by v1 protocol exchange that will be shared with the v2 protocols are prepared to be driven by refname without knowing the exact object name until the final round.