Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] bundle-uri docs: add design notes
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-24 22:39:42
On Tue, Aug 24 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] On 2021-08-05 at 15:07:29, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:quoted
Add a design doc for the bundle-uri protocol extension to go along with the packfile-uri extension added in cd8402e0fd8 (Documentation: add Packfile URIs design doc, 2020-06-10). Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted> --- Documentation/technical/bundle-uri.txt | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt | 5 + 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/technical/bundle-uri.txtdiff --git a/Documentation/technical/bundle-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/bundle-uri.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..5ae9a15eaf --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/bundle-uri.txt@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ +Bundle URI Design Notes +======================= + +Protocol +-------- + +See `bundle-uri` in the link:protocol-v2.html[protocol-v2] +documentation for a discussion of the bundle-uri command, and the +expectations of clients and servers. + +This document is a a more general discussion of how the `bundle-uri` +command fits in with the rest of the git ecosystem, its design goals +and non-goals, comparison to alternatives etc. + +Comparison with Packfile URIs +----------------------------- + +There is a similar "Packfile URIs" facility, see the +link:packfile-uri.html[packfile-uri] documentation for details. + +The Packfile URIs facility requires a much closer cooperation between +CDN and server than the bundle URI facility. + +I.e. the server MUST know what objects exist in the packfile URI it's +pointing to, as well as its pack checksum. Failure to do so will not +only result in a client error (the packfile hash won't match), but +even if it got past that would likely result in a corrupt repository +with tips pointing to unreachable objects. + +By comparison the bundle URIs are meant to be a "dumb" solution +friendly to e.g. having a weekly cronjob take a snapshot of a git +repository, that snapshot being uploaded to a network of FTP mirrors +(which may be inconsistent or out of date). + +The server does not need to know what state the side-channel download +is at, because the client will first validate it, and then optionally +negotiate with the server using what it discovers there. + +Using the local `transfer.injectBundleURI` configuration variable (see +linkgit:git-config[1]) the `bundle-uri` mechanism doesn't even need +the server to support it.One thing I'm not seeing with this doc that I brought up during the packfile URI discussion is that HTTPS is broken for a decent number of Git users, and for them SSH is the only viable option. This is true for users of certain antivirus programs on Windows, as well as people who have certain corporate proxies in their workplace. For those people, as soon as the server offers a bundle URI, their connection will stop working. I know that you're probably thinking, "Gee, how often does that happen?" but judging by the number of people on StackOverflow, this is actually very common. The antivirus programs that break Git are actually not uncommon and they are widely deployed on corporate machines, plus the fact that lots of companies sell TLS intercepting proxies, which are almost always broken in this way. Many of these users don't even know what's going on, so they simply lack the knowledge to take any action or ask their network administrator for a fix. For them, HTTPS just doesn't work with Git, while it does for a web browser. So we will probably want to make this behavior opt-in with a config option for SSH, or just not available for SSH at all, so that we don't magically break users on upgrade who are relying on the SSH protocol not using HTTPS under the hood[0], especially the users who won't even know what's wrong.
Good point, I think this sort of thing will be a non-issue with bundle-uri, because in general it handles any sort of network / fetching / validation failures gracefully. I.e. with these patches you can point at a bad URI, broken non-bundle etc. We'll just move on to a full clone. Whereas with packfile-uri the inline PACK and the URI are things you MUST both get, as the provided packfile-uri completes the incomplete inline PACK. So once you say that you're willing to accept things over https, you MUST be able to get that thing. We'll still waste a bit of time trying though with bundle-uri. But I think for the common case of bundle-uri helping more than not (which presumably, the server operator has tested), it's a better default to try https:// even if the main dialog is over ssh://.