Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Or perhaps not, but they're my currently my best effort to explain the > differences between the two and how they interact. So I think it's best > to point to those instead of coming up with something in this reply, > which'll inevitably be an incomplete rewrite of much of that. > > In short, there are use-cases that packfile-uri is inherently unsuitable > for, or rather changing the packfile-uri feature to support them would > pretty much make it indistinguishable from this bundle-uri mechanism, > which I think would just add more confusion to the protocol. Hm. I was hoping you might say more about those use cases --- e.g. is there a concrete installation that wants to take advantage of this? By focusing on the real-world example, we'd get a better shared understanding of the underlying constraints. After all, both are ways to reduce the bandwidth of a clone or other large fetch operation by offloading the bulk of content to static serving. Thanks, Jonathan
