On Fri, Mar 04 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:

On 2/24/2022 9:11 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote:

quoted

On 2/23/2022 5:17 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 23 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

There have been several suggestions to improve Git clone speeds and
reliability by supplementing the Git protocol with static content. The
Packfile URI [0] feature lets the Git response include URIs that point to
packfiles that the client must download to complete the request.

Last year, Ævar suggested using bundles instead of packfiles [1] [2]. This
design has the same benefits to the packfile URI feature because it offloads
most object downloads to static content fetches. The main advantage over
packfile URIs is that the remote Git server does not need to know what is in
those bundles. The Git client tells the server what it downloaded during the
fetch negotiation afterwards. This includes any chance that the client did
not have access to those bundles or otherwise failed to access them. I
agreed that this was a much more desirable way to serve static content, but
had concerns about the flexibility of that design [3]. I have not heard more
on the topic since October, so I started investigating this idea myself in
December, resulting in this RFC.

This timing is both quite fortunate & unfortunate for me, since I'd been
blocked / waiting on various things until very recently to submit a
non-RFC re-roll of (a larger version of) that series you mentioned from
October.

I guess the good news is that we'll have at least one guaranteed very
interested reviewer for each other's patches, and that the design that
makes it into git.git in the end will definitely be well hashed out :)

I won't be able to review this in any detail right at this hour, but
will be doing so. I'd also like to submit what I've got in some form
soon for hashing the two out.

It will be some 50+ patches on the ML in total though related to this
topic, so I think the two of us coming up with some way to manage all of
that for both ourselves & others would be nice. Perhaps we could also
have an off-list (video) chat in real time to clarify/discuss various
thing related to this.

I look forward to seeing your full implementation. There are many things
about your RFC that left me confused and not fully understanding your
vision.

I am genuinely curious to see your full implementation of bundle URIs.
I've been having trouble joining the Git IRC chats, but I saw from the
logs that you are working on getting patches together.

Do you have an expected timeline on that progress?

I would like to move forward in getting bundle URIs submitted as a full
feature, but it is important to see your intended design so we can take
the best parts of both to create a version that satisfies us both.

Hi. Very sorry about the late reply. I relly meant to have something
read to send at the end of this week, but it's been a bit of a
whirlwhind of random things coming up & distracting me too much. Sorry.

I'm also totally on board with that goal, are you OK with waiting until
the end of next week at the latest?

Also, as noted in the upthread
[ref] it might be useful to chat
in a more voice/video medium in parallel (maybe mid-next-week) about the
high-level ideas & to get a feel for our goals, conflicts etc. Doing
that over very long E-Mail exchanges (and the fault of "long" there is
mostly on my side:) can be a bit harder...