On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 12:32 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I'll queue these for now, but I doubt the wisdom of this series,
> given that the ship has already sailed long time ago.
> Currently, no third-party implementation of a receiving end can
> accept thin push, because "thin push" is not a capability that needs
> to be checked by the current clients.  People will have to wait
> until the clients with 2/2 patch are widely deployed before starting
> to use such a receiving end that is incapable of "thin push".
> Wouldn't the world be a better place if instead they used that time
> waiting to help such a third-party receiving end to implement "thin
> push" support?

Support in the code isn't always enough. The particular case that
brought this on is one where the index-pack implementation can deal with
thin packs just fine.

This particular service takes the pack which the client sent and does
post-processing on it to store it elsewhere. During the receive-pack
equivalent, there is no git object db that it can query for the missing
base objects. I realise this is pretty a unusual situation.


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