On 2/24/2022 9:11 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 2/23/2022 5:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 23 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: >>> There have been several suggestions to improve Git clone speeds and >>> reliability by supplementing the Git protocol with static content. The >>> Packfile URI [0] feature lets the Git response include URIs that point to >>> packfiles that the client must download to complete the request. >>> >>> Last year, Ævar suggested using bundles instead of packfiles [1] [2]. This >>> design has the same benefits to the packfile URI feature because it offloads >>> most object downloads to static content fetches. The main advantage over >>> packfile URIs is that the remote Git server does not need to know what is in >>> those bundles. The Git client tells the server what it downloaded during the >>> fetch negotiation afterwards. This includes any chance that the client did >>> not have access to those bundles or otherwise failed to access them. I >>> agreed that this was a much more desirable way to serve static content, but >>> had concerns about the flexibility of that design [3]. I have not heard more >>> on the topic since October, so I started investigating this idea myself in >>> December, resulting in this RFC. >> >> This timing is both quite fortunate & unfortunate for me, since I'd been >> blocked / waiting on various things until very recently to submit a >> non-RFC re-roll of (a larger version of) that series you mentioned from >> October. >> >> I guess the good news is that we'll have at least one guaranteed very >> interested reviewer for each other's patches, and that the design that >> makes it into git.git in the end will definitely be well hashed out :) >> >> I won't be able to review this in any detail right at this hour, but >> will be doing so. I'd also like to submit what I've got in some form >> soon for hashing the two out. >> >> It will be some 50+ patches on the ML in total though related to this >> topic, so I think the two of us coming up with some way to manage all of >> that for both ourselves & others would be nice. Perhaps we could also >> have an off-list (video) chat in real time to clarify/discuss various >> thing related to this. > > I look forward to seeing your full implementation. There are many things > about your RFC that left me confused and not fully understanding your > vision. I am genuinely curious to see your full implementation of bundle URIs. I've been having trouble joining the Git IRC chats, but I saw from the logs that you are working on getting patches together. Do you have an expected timeline on that progress? I would like to move forward in getting bundle URIs submitted as a full feature, but it is important to see your intended design so we can take the best parts of both to create a version that satisfies us both. Thanks, -Stolee
