Nicolas Pitre <> writes:

> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>> nr_objects in the next patch is used to reflect the number of actual
>> objects in the stream, which may be smaller than the number recorded
>> in pack header.
> This highlights an issue that has been nagging me for a while.
> We decided to send the final number of objects in the thin pack header 
> for two reasons:
> 1) it allows to properly size the SHA1 table upfront which already 
>    contains entries for the omitted objects;
> 2) the whole pack doesn't have to be re-summed again after being 
>    completed on the receiving end since we don't alter the header.
> However this means that the progress meter will now be wrong and that's 
> terrible !  Users *will* complain that the meter doesn't reach 100% and 
> they'll protest for being denied the remaining objects during the 
> transfer !
> Joking aside, we should think about doing something about it.  I was 
> wondering if some kind of prefix to the pack stream could be inserted 
> onto the wire when sending a pack v4.  Something like:
> 'T', 'H', 'I', 'N', <actual_number_of_sent_objects_in_network_order>
> This 8-byte prefix would simply be discarded by index-pack after being 
> parsed.
> What do you think?

I do not think it is _too_ bad if the meter jumped from 92% to 100%
when we finish reading from the other end ;-), as long as we can
reliably tell that we read the right thing.

Which brings me to a tangent.  Do we have a means to make sure that
the data received over the wire is bit-for-bit correct as a whole
when it is a thin pack stream?  When it is a non-thin pack stream,
we have the checksum at the end added by sha1close() which
index-pack.c::parse_pack_objects() can (and does) verify.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to