Thread (28 messages) 28 messages, 4 authors, 2025-03-17

Re: [PATCH 0/9] fetch: further ref-prefix cleanups and optimizations

From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2025-03-13 05:50:11

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 05:49:26PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 05:29:28PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
quoted
quoted
 builtin/fetch.c        | 46 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------
 refspec.c              | 22 ++++++++++++++------
 t/t5516-fetch-push.sh  | 12 ++++++-----
 t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 4 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
Kidding, of course, I am looking forward to reviewing it now.
This looks great to me. I left a few minor comments throughout, but am
unsurprisingly on-board with the overall approach as you and I discussed
this off-list a week or two ago.

    Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau [off-list ref]
Thanks. My biggest question is on patch 8, and whether the existing
set_head() feature really ought to be more aggressive about pointing at
stuff we didn't fetch (and that could even be unborn on our side!).

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it would mean adjusting
the idea of when set_head() kicks in (e.g., should we do it for every
fetch, or should exact-oid fetches continue to optimize out the ls-refs
call?).

-Peff
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help