Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] bundle v3: the beginning

Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:

would it be
ok if we introduced a minimal resumable download service via
git-daemon to enable this feature with very little setup? Like
git-shell, you can only download certain packfiles for this use case
and nothing else with this service.

I think it is a matter of priorities.

A minimalistic site that offers only git-daemon traffic without a
working HTTP server would certainly benefit from such a thing, but
serving static files efficiently over the web is commodity service
these days.  Wouldn't it be sufficient to just recommend having a
normal HTTP server serving static files, which should be "very
little setup" in today's world?

Such a "minimal resumable download service" over the git-daemon
transport still has to reinvent what is already done well by the
HTTP servers and clients (e.g. support of ETag equivalent to make
sure that the client can notice that the underlying data has changed
for a given resource, headers to communicate the total length,
making a range request and responding to it, etc. etc.).

In addition,, by going the custom protocol route, you wouldn't
benefit from caching HTTP proxies available to the clients.

So I am not sure if the benefit outweighs the cost.

I wouldn't stop you if you really want to do it, but again, it is a
matter of priorities.  I personally feel that it would be a waste of
engineering talent, and it certainly would be a waste of review
bandwidth, if you gave priority to this over other more widely
useful parts of the system.  The procedure to repack should be
updated to produce such a base pack with the separate bundle header
on the server side, the protocol needs to be updated to allow
redirection for "clone" traffic, the logic to decide when to
redirect must be designed (e.g. "single branch" clone should not
choose a pack/bundle that represents the full repository, but a pack
for the branch that was asked), etc.  There are still tons of things
that need to be done, and it would be a distraction to invent a
custom download service nobody other than git-daemon talks before
all of the above is done.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

would it be
ok if we introduced a minimal resumable download service via
git-daemon to enable this feature with very little setup? Like
git-shell, you can only download certain packfiles for this use case
and nothing else with this service.

I think it is a matter of priorities.

A minimalistic site that offers only git-daemon traffic without a
working HTTP server would certainly benefit from such a thing, but
serving static files efficiently over the web is commodity service
these days.  Wouldn't it be sufficient to just recommend having a
normal HTTP server serving static files, which should be "very
little setup" in today's world?

Such a "minimal resumable download service" over the git-daemon
transport still has to reinvent what is already done well by the
HTTP servers and clients (e.g. support of ETag equivalent to make
sure that the client can notice that the underlying data has changed
for a given resource, headers to communicate the total length,
making a range request and responding to it, etc. etc.).

In addition,, by going the custom protocol route, you wouldn't
benefit from caching HTTP proxies available to the clients.

So I am not sure if the benefit outweighs the cost.

What I had in mind was individuals who just want to publish their work
over git://. Right now it's just a matter of running git-daemon and
configuring it a bit. If it was me, I wouldn't expect all the bells
and whistles that come with http. But I agree that this is low
priority, "scratch your own itch" kind of thing. Let's have resumable
clone with standard download protocols first, then we'll see.
-- 
Duy