On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:07:46AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > - In your reply [2] to the above [1], you mentioned the possibility of > > > keeping a list of cutoff points. One way of doing this, as I state in > > > [3], is my original suggestion back in 2017 of one such > > > repository-wide list. If we do this, it would be better for > > > fetch-pack to handle this instead of index-pack, and it seems more > > > efficient to me to have index-pack be able to pass objects to > > > fetch-pack as they are inflated instead of fetch-pack rereading the > > > compressed forms on disk (but again, I haven't verified this). > > > > And this is the flip-side problem: we need to get data back, but we have > > only stdout, which is already in use (so we need some kind of protocol). > > That leads to things like the horrible NUL-byte added by 83558686ce > > (receive-pack: send keepalives during quiet periods, 2016-07-15). > > Sounds good. With this, do you think that there is enough likelihood of > acceptance that we can move ahead with my proposed project? > > Besides discussing the likelihood of patches being accepted/rejected, > should we record the result of discussion somewhere (or, if only the > mentor should give their ideas, for me to write in more detail)? I don't > recall a place in the Outreachy form to write this, so I just mentioned > the benefits in outline, but maybe I can just include it somewhere > anyway. Yeah, I think it's OK to go ahead. I think an intern who is interested in the project would get in touch with you either directly, or via the list. So that gives some opportunity to discuss the ideas with them, and to go into more detail on the proposal in an interactive way (it would also be fine to point at this thread, too, of course). -Peff
