Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I also think that we should keep this first implementation of > ref-in-want simple and *not* include patterns, even if that's what we > may want someday down the road. Adding a new capability in the future > for support of such patterns would be relatively simple and easy. I am all for many-small-steps over a single-giant-step approach. > The > reason why I don't think we should add pattern support just yet is due > to a request for "want-ref refs/tags/*" or a like request resulting in a > larger than expected packfile every time "fetch --tags" is run. The > issue being that in a fetch request "refs/tags/*" is too broad of a > request and could be requesting 100s of tags when all we really wanted > was to get the one or two new tags which are present on the remote > (because we already have all the other tags present locally). I do not quite get this. Why does it have to result in a large packfile? Doesn't the requester of refs/tags/* still show what it has via "have" exchange?
