From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCB2C433E0 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 05:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC0A64F95 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 05:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230483AbhBEF0l (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 00:26:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57424 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229998AbhBEF0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2021 00:26:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E010B7CA7; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 00:25:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Rw9zA/QQBWZQBn/j5G43ogA6gC8=; b=NRFFTb 3mR9BEgXZTd51a1G1AMTyUVdLBl79vX6yMIAh4EZuDVDkOTZHmulm5Il5GwlDf7v INAKVgFQ1VlshTyJWe3V2bPfKx05CG1yJqrHqg7qTD/wyuRVJFcJ1lDJaMHNPKVd Yv3CxQJdEOovF+2n6NeJh/3t8qwJc2qYibmck= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NDrOFPDN4J9QyN+t5/A22j+DYF5yjZe+ JKy5YNkjTand+5ll1JSpzq/2BlSzlkin+HGQr3ukxArueR7dcRFhaJPqniKwqvUR qi4mD9rp+kl9btB7cVv9KEjZM+cRt2Nad/VOQ6B2OwbAqybmiEJ2u3CjH7YHV5Fq cio775BPymw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F77B7CA6; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 00:25:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AABB8B7CA5; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 00:25:57 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cloning with remote unborn HEAD References: <20201208013121.677494-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 21:25:57 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Tan's message of "Thu, 4 Feb 2021 20:58:30 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A03C120E-6772-11EB-8D91-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > For what it's worth, here's v7 with advertise/allow/ignore and by > default, advertise. I think that some server operators will have use for > this feature, and people who want to disable it for whatever reason can > still do so. The main disadvantage is complexity - the server knob that > server administrators will need to control (but between a simpler > allow/ignore knob and a more complicated advertise/allow/ignore knob, I > think we might as well go for the slightly more complex one) and > complexity in the code (but now that is constrained to one function and > a few global variables). > > As you can see from the range-diff, not much has changed from v6. > > I've also included Junio's suggestion of tightening the promise made by > the server (when the client says "unborn"). This looks reasonable overall, especially with the feature turned on by default, we'd hopefully get reasonable exposure from the get-go. Let's mark the topic to be merged to 'next' soonish, unless people object. Thanks.