(cc: Jonathan Tan for "git push" discussion; Minh Thai for negotiate hook discussion) Hi, Elijah Newren wrote: > I had a user report that two nearly identical pushes (the second being > an amended commit of the first) took dramatically differing amounts of > time and amount of data uploaded (from 4.5 seconds and about 21k > uploaded, to 223 seconds and over 100 MB uploaded). Yes, this is why I want push negotiation. (It's been something we've been discussing for protocol v2 for push.) If they fetch before they push, does that help? [...] > * The server was running Gerrit 3.1.4 (i.e. jgit). Gerrit servers have the interesting property that many people are pushing to the same Git repo. (This is common in some other hosting scenarios such as Gitlab, but the most common case among Git users still seems to be pushing to a repo you own.) When you push, because there's no negotiation phase, the only information we have about what is present on the server is what is in the ref advertisement. (We have remote-tracking branches which seem potentially useful, but we don't have a way to ask the server "are these objects you still have?") The ref advertisement describes the *current* state of all refs. If I am pushing a new topic branch (in Gerrit jargon, a new change for review) based on the *old* state of a branch that has moved on, then we can only hope that some other ref (for example a tag) points to a recent enough state to give us a base for what to upload. There is one trick a server can use to mitigate this: advertise some refs that don't exist! If you advertise a ref ".have", then Git will understand that the server has that object but it is not an actual ref. Gerrit uses this trick in its HackPushNegotiateHook[1] to advertise a few recent commits. At $DAYJOB we ran into some clients where "a few recent commits" was not sufficient to get to history that the client is aware of. We tried changing it to do some exponential deepening, and that helped. We should probably upstream that change for other Gerrit users. Gerrit also advertises some other ".have"s, for example for recent changes by the same author in case you're uploading an amended version. That's less relevant here. But fundamentally, this is something that cannot be addressed properly without improving the "git push" protocol (adding a negotiation phase). Summary: (1) try fetching first (2) let's improve HackPushNegotiateHook#advertiseRefs (3) let's improve "git push" protocol to make this a problem of the past. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan [1] https://gerrit.googlesource.com/gerrit/+/e1f4fee1f3ce674f44cb9788e6798ff8522bb876/java/com/google/gerrit/server/git/receive/HackPushNegotiateHook.java#111
