From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIMWL_WL_MED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2178D1F6AC for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933804AbeGISdc (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:33:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:41851 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932789AbeGISda (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:33:30 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id 4-v6so54446pgo.8 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2MQ11cXDwYqy8LmwQcTnJTaCSU9CF2DzgYpTG+W4jik=; b=CdUePpZEKVL65kDFOW4puIm3A87xYnqGxOUFnQbNPnLNY97qsx/nlmrm9plXeZTcrG PXNOd/PhmLPBtW/OExItspFVQo7q2xa0uag1mFcRQUMjOYWkW72HNnPCXZuLgHkZse4k zZ0t78J1j/2Pdbb41x8ddz6zkqMGanSYQq1EK7JfBSMang5hyN0pbsMMv09UOm7Bj3Cd ckZyxhHb+Uysg+mw2ttmuLcMJkmJWqTq5d5ycWr1jUB8tFvDhmyxMb+tpddTMe6pFp1s ACJarA4R8JsK52c6RcFpTOHZMYF7visgEA/l2fPy0i1S6UBQYi+lLEaV/4cn0aRwltan yJmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2MQ11cXDwYqy8LmwQcTnJTaCSU9CF2DzgYpTG+W4jik=; b=CxAgfwwtIl0kWj+Pwnl5cWCmTFPwVX1GlOqHkeUgVCe+i7Zttc4LkQDZc0X/n7+YVm GuqiTLDeTlzRuQAlUuJD7LL2bxb+DfatPetetaAI5uxdySoVhaBdypAuf8Mh6+wyL3mI KzOH3lVv0KJbtqcbZF4TlJ+/1Pav/VhX5uEEaWzgL0yWdwXQ7BIPJP2eA0QnY4M592/m RALEi2GuUKSUj4AyzWSXw/J3sE78jIRe3KD6aSiqq8UKILAfnuOPTFAKu8AotjIygJ8h +qjVDKyE6tQqWuGO0KnONL2H7tOVOLX04uFiOrt9u03vAALmVfubD8H2zW2DM5aDn8iX 3Q5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E08wPEvm/gkoc7A4djpwdjJ6zr6OB4ax22Q9/UAxy149OPpxlLH 8lJZC8PuiR+TcLTaB3hQxODLoQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpd1RaaGpal6sbyWPjt59vST42xE/g9gQOabOjon34Fk3N89ftJtAb2f2yp1zEk2H9Y5U7ZnLQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:41c6:: with SMTP id o189-v6mr20251648pga.323.1531161210076; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:ff43:9291:7eda:b712]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e21-v6sm14549182pfl.187.2018.07.09.11.33.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Jul 2018 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 11:33:28 -0700 From: Brandon Williams To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] fetch: send "refs/tags/" prefix upon CLI refspecs Message-ID: <20180709183328.GD81741@google.com> References: <20180709173813.GA14196@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> <20180709175939.GC81741@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 07/09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > > > I agree with this observation, though I'm a bit sad about it. I think > > that having tag auto-following the default is a little confusing (and > > hurts perf[1] when using proto v2) but since thats the way its always been > > we'll have to live with it for now. I think exploring changing the > > defaults might be a good thing to do in the future. But for now we've > > had enough people comment on this lacking functionality that we should > > fix it. > > > > [1] Thankfully it doesn't completely undo what protocol v2 did, as we > > still are able to eliminate refs/changes or refs/pull or other various > > refs which significantly add to the number of refs advertised during > > fetch. > > I thought JTan's <20180618231642.174650-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> > showed us a way forward to reduce the overhead even further without > having to be sad ;-). Am I mistaken? That's true, what Jonathan mentioned there would avoid having to send "refs/tags/*" when requesting the refs. The question is do we wait on implementing that functionality (as another feature to fetch) or do we fix this now? -- Brandon Williams