On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Nicolas Pitre <n...@fluxnic.net> wrote:
> > 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 have no problem with this. Although I rather we generalize the case
> to support multiple packs in the same stream (in some case the server
> can just stream away one big existing pack, followed by a smaller pack
> of recent updates), where "thin" is just a special pack that is not
> saved on disk. So except for the signature difference, it should at
> least follow the pack header (sig, version, nr_objects)

Except in this case this is not a separate pack.  This prefix is there 
to provide information that is valid only for the pack to follow and 
therefore cannot be considered as some independent data.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to