On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM, <david@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> david@xxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> on the other hand, it would be a good thing if pack files could be >>> cached. >>> >>> in a peer-peer git environment the cache would not be used very much, but >>> when you have a large number of people tracking a central repository (or >>> even a pseudo-central one like the kernel) you have a lot of people >>> upgrading from one point to the next point. >>> >> >> Worth noting that this also applies to the raw git protocol. > > IIRC the native git server will use existing packs when it can. > > it would be interesting to modify git to record what packs it generates and > then see how much a big server (like kernel.org) would re-use a pack under > different caching strategies. I fully agree with the caching logic as well. In this regard I was thinking whether the protocol could be modified a bit to accommodate it or not. From initial proposal GET was dropped because there will be caching, which I also agree :), and we need GET in order to achieve cache - so I would have done something such as - initial request would be POST and if there is no change and cache can be used I would redirect it to a equivalen GET URL and if cache is invalid (which the server can track by pinging the GET URL) serve directly through the POST method untill either the GET is out of the cache or is updated. - Imran > > David Lang > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Imran M Yousuf Email: imran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/ Mobile: +880-1711402557 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
