On Fri, Mar 04 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote: > 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. Hi. Very sorry about the late reply. I relly meant to have something read to send at the end of this week, but it's been a bit of a whirlwhind of random things coming up & distracting me too much. Sorry. I'm also totally on board with that goal, are you OK with waiting until the end of next week at the latest? Also, as noted in the upthread <220224.86czjdb22l.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> it might be useful to chat in a more voice/video medium in parallel (maybe mid-next-week) about the high-level ideas & to get a feel for our goals, conflicts etc. Doing that over very long E-Mail exchanges (and the fault of "long" there is mostly on my side:) can be a bit harder...
