Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) (part 2/3)

On 9/22/2017 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:19:50 -0400
Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

In your specific example, how would rev-list know, on the client, to
include (or exclude) a large blob in its output if it does not have it,
and thus does not know its size?

The client doesn't have the size. It just knows it is missing and it
needs it. It doesn't matter why it is missing.  (But I guess the client
could assume it is because it is large.)

Ah, OK.

quoted

So rev-list on the client could filter the objects it has by size.

My issue is that if the purpose of this feature in rev-list is to do
prefetching, the only criterion we need to check for is absence from the
local repo right? (Or is filtering by size on the client useful for
other reasons?)

The prefetch before a checkout may want all missing blobs, or it
want to work with the sparse-checkout specification and only get
the required missing blobs in the subset of the tree.  By putting
the same filter logic in rev-list, we can do that.

It also sets the stage for later filtering trees.  (My current patch
only filters blobs.  It would be nice to have a second version of the
sparse filter that also omits trees, but that may require a recursive
option in the fetch-objects protocol.)

quoted

FYI I just posted my RFC this afternoon.
https://public-inbox.org/git/20170922204211.GA24036@google.com/T/

Thanks, I'll take a look.