On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 01:00:40AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > So...what does it all mean for this fix? > > I think the patch I posted earlier, to keep the .idx files as separate > tempfiles, is only slightly worse than the status quo (it doesn't keep > P.idx that we didn't need). And given my general feelings towards the > dumb-http protocol, maybe that is the right place to stop. > > It just feels like we _could_ be improving things with a better managed > .idx cache system. And that would fix the regression at the same time. > But I'm not sure it's worth sinking time and complexity into this > terribly inefficient protocol. > > (Part of why I laid all this out is that until wrote all of the above, I > wasn't completely convinced that case (a) was the only one that > suffered, and that it was so mild). All very well analyzed. I share your feelings about the dumb-HTTP protocol. It would be nice to fix, but I have a feeling that our collective time is probably better spent pursuing a reasonable band-aid and then focusing our attention elsewhere ;-). Thanks, Taylor
