On 06/15, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > Supporting patterns would mean that we would possibly be able to > eliminate the ls-refs step, thus saving at least a RTT. (Originally I > thought that supporting patterns would also allow us to tolerate refs > being removed during the fetch process, but I see that this is already > handled by the server ignoring "want-ref <ref>" wherein <ref> doesn't > exist on the server.) What's your opinion on this? Should we keep it how it is in v2 of the series where the server ignores refs it doesn't know about or revert to what v1 of the series did and have it be a hard error? I've gone back and forth on what I think we should do so I'd like to hear at least one more opinion :) -- Brandon Williams
