On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:47:37PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > The specification of promisor packfiles (in partial-clone.txt) states > that the .promisor files that accompany packfiles do not matter (just > like .keep files), so whenever a packfile is fetched from the promisor > remote, Git has been writing empty .promisor files. But these files > could contain more useful information. > > So instead of writing empty files, write the refs fetched to these > files. This makes it easier to debug issues with partial clones, as we > can identify what refs (and their associated hashes) were fetched at the > time the packfile was downloaded, and if necessary, compare those hashes > against what the promisor remote reports now. I'm not really opposed to what you're doing here, but I did recently think of another possible use for .promisor files. So it seems like a good time to bring it up, since presumably we'd have to choose one or the other. I noticed when playing with partial clones that the client may sometimes pause for a while, chewing CPU. The culprit is is_promisor_object(), which generates the list of known promisor objects by opening every object we _do_ have to find out which ones they mention. I know one of the original design features of the promisor pack was that the client would _not_ keep a list of all of the objects it didn't have. But I wonder if it would make sense to keep a cache of these "cut points" in the partial clone. That's potentially smaller than the complete set of objects (especially for tree-based partial cloning), and it seems clear we're willing to store it in memory anyway. And if we do that, would the .promisor file for a pack be a good place to store it? -Peff
