From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502C0C433FE for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 01:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229772AbiKBBFI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:05:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40858 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229695AbiKBBFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:05:07 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB39B1A212 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 18:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id s9so8752323ilu.1 for ; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 18:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=c8EHqixf2pQrDz9KRfoaMx9hB7MqFxjHQFE6gs8Xr1g=; b=xtiMwghBNjXtHxml++92FRMCwFow0uQtdFtF+3flRSWdk/H6HlLBqAtbA4thGJAQhS RVF3GtH/Ctxth9Jpa4q7COtHQvluHyL8Ht3diktqL8UIUYRmwE8qWGD/jaL3GOQ8hzbP h6uVK+K64B84J/NTYZ7peEDl883c3bAlXqFrKra9dy1WIZQZkXib6Qu7hDVbHDyp0gVu LobIuzoho+8oOoNc4ZoU3IY4sktahcMHi1I4Wfedh49X/enaXGJDtQ9ueq6ZZvK3t2x4 DXvbSQS+6mbCb+7a01PE1kj5CVZJkF/FZl46g4pLcEQiXcq1y8L8FrXitEePT+T0fA5S GN6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=c8EHqixf2pQrDz9KRfoaMx9hB7MqFxjHQFE6gs8Xr1g=; b=fw7wfHRwcvLnKM3onpMnD0VUpglvYVyNtK3CGAuRgsAku0mOtw62cf5J6ZPUUM51ek v4G4FWbgQQCqL3VOcV/+WenKQeUpiJ2tZxRTZwPfkw70p2zwKQi5/XHpM6x09MMpyre2 y03oYqIgpd3sWEqbd6glClSvIguc10fWrDK2JlU9LuZbpMJfsSegCfN47q5GyKNGxSoR 15/+RYLZQdj1MtI1JvthQjRr3b80+laQYiykfeB4gHdJZtjkwlwQ/Z3XfUsA6HP2O21H R8bruE5EjXafx0pYTbeP870cViDPXL9ZSy80uF/yiArDztOaCam6H/GQCUQVN4DWfoTj vqGg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0G1VW2Hn+YhctAvN508Ti7xxxfK+bgw0sFsoh7rspeFhrox2kR Km+gohSbcIlM+m5c6HvI9Cx+VVdGel59nb8q X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5FVVVb7nmU+UviXhmikGWzyQ1/zOyD+KFYN3UvPXMTPm18zhcWJD7CpZQxkLhoIK1MgRbFyg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:180f:b0:300:2f31:a1f1 with SMTP id a15-20020a056e02180f00b003002f31a1f1mr12972881ilv.179.1667351106364; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 18:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g16-20020a92d7d0000000b002ffbf49a0d2sm4097204ilq.84.2022.11.01.18.05.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 01 Nov 2022 18:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:05:04 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] receive-pack: use advertised reference tips to inform connectivity check Message-ID: References: <006e89f384be1227b922fb6fdc8755ae84cac587.1666967670.git.ps@pks.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 12:53:42PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > Maybe, though I think it's fine to let clients send us smaller packfiles > > > if they have some a-priori knowledge that the server has objects that it > > > isn't advertising. And that can all happen without buggy code. So it's > > > weird, but there isn't anything wrong with letting it happen. > > > > Well, I don't see how to achieve both at the same time though: we can > > either limit the set of uninteresting tips to what we have announced to > > the client, or we allow clients to omit objects that have not been > > announced. These are mutually exclusive. > > > > So if we take the stance that it was fine to send packfiles that omit > > hidden objects and that this is something we want to continue to support > > then this patch series probably becomes moot. Doing the proposed > > optimization means that we also tighten the rules here. > > I'm wrong and you're right: we can do the optimization to limit the refs > we use but still let clients send objects that are hidden. I didn't take > into account that this is merely an optimization that we stop walking at > reachable tips. I'll reword the commit message when having another go > and will likely do something along the lines of your proposed new > `--visible-refs` option in v2 of this series. I wasn't necessarily advocating for a behavior change in this series, more pointing out that the situation you said can only happen with buggy code doesn't actually require a bug in practice. Thanks, Taylor