Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2018-02-09
  • (off-list ancestor, not in this archive)
  • Re: Fetch-hooks · Junio C Hamano <hidden> · 2018-02-09

Re: Fetch-hooks

From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-09 22:45:56

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
The negotiation for future fetches uses the existing refs as the
starting point. And if we don't know that we have the objects because
there are no refs pointing at them, they're going to get transferred
again. That's extra load no the server, and extra time for the user
waiting on the network.

I tend to agree with the direction of thinking you outlined: you're
generally better off completing the fetch to a local namespace that
tracks the other side completely, and then manipulating the local refs
as you see fit (e.g., fetching into refs/quarantine, and then migrating
"good" refs over to refs/remotes/origin).
Thanks for a dose of sanity ;-)
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help