Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > We're in the 2.33.0 rc cycle, and I'd hoped to have some more prep > work for this integrated already, but for now here's something > interesting I've been working on for early commentary/feedback. > > This adds the the ability to protocol v2 for servers to optimistically > pre-seed supporting clients with one or more bundles via a new > "bundle-uri" protocol extension. My initial thought here is that even though this includes a comparison to packfile URIs, I suspect you're underestimating them. :) Would it be possible to do the same pre-seeding using the packfile URIs protocol? Nothing stops a server from sending more objects than the client asked for. Is the issue that you want the client to be able to list "have"s based on that pack? Can't the server obtain that same information at the same time as it obtains the bundle URL? The reason I ask is that this contains a number of differences relative to packfile URIs, most noticeably the use of bundles instead of packfiles as the format for the static content. If we were starting from scratch and chose this design _instead_ of packfile URIs then that could make sense (though there are issues with the bundle format that we can also go into), but in a world where people are also using packfile URIs it makes for a kind of confusing UX. Is a server operator expected to put both kinds of files on CDN and double their storage bill? Is this meant as an alternative, a replacement, or something that combines well together with the packfile URIs feature? What does the intended end state look like? Projects like chromium have been using packfile URIs in production for about 11 months now and it's been working well. Because of that, I'd be interested in understanding its shortcomings and improving it in place --- or in other words, I want _you_ to benefit from them instead of having to create an alternative to them. Alternatively, if the packfile URIs protocol is fundamentally flawed, then I'd like us to understand that early and act on it instead of creating a parallel alternative and waiting for it to bitrot. I'll try to find time to look more closely at the patches to understand the use case in more detail, but it will take some time since I'm currently focused on the -rc. Thanks, Jonathan
