Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hmph. If C asks a partial clone and S is willing to be the promisor >> for C, S is essentially saying that it will serve C any objects on >> demand that are reachable from any object it served C in the past, >> forever, no? It might not get from S initially all the objects, but >> if it wants later, S promises to let C have them. > > This promise is not broken, as S can still get the missing objects > from X and then pass them to C. There is even the following test case > in the patch that shows that it works when uploadpack.missingAction is > unset (and thus default to "error" which is the same as how things > currently work): And the whole point of that configuration is to make it easier for S to break that promise, no? uploadPack.missingAction is set at S and is not under control of C, right? > So S keeps its promise to let C have any object through S if C wants. > It's just that having large objects through S (instead of directly > from X) is not a good idea ... > ... > So if it's Ok for other features to require an additional server to > fulfill the promise, why is it not Ok in the case of S + X? I am questioning the design that does not give C any say in the decision if it is a good idea or not to ask S relay large objects. S unilaterally decides that it does not want to and does not serve such large objects to C, and without even checking with C if it can reach X to fetch directly, silently assuming that C will do so, right? It is quite different from the contract between C and S in the simpler world. > I don't understand why you compare this to a "broken" implementation > of promisor remotes. What could then be a non-broken one that would > store large blobs on a separate server in your opinion? I am really > interested in answers to this question. It's not a rhetorical one. You as S would tell C "I want you to go to X because I am not serving objects X and Y". Or at least make sure that C knows about X before deciding to omit what X ought to have. Not doing anything and silently assuming that C will get them from elsewhere is simply irresponsible, especially if C is not even told about X over the protocol, no?
