Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-19 Thread Jonathan Tan
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:02:09 -0700 Stefan Beller wrote: > Here I wondered what this file looks like, in a later patch you > add documentation: > > +objects/promisedblob:: > + This file records the sha1 object names and sizes of promised > + blobs. > + >

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-14 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Jeff Hostetler wrote: > On 7/13/2017 3:39 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: >> I know that discussion has shifted to the possibility of not having this >> list at all, and not sending size information together with the fetch, >> but going back to this...maybe omitting trees *is* the solution to both >> the

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-14 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 7/13/2017 3:39 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:29:11 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: My primary concern is scale and managing the list of objects over time. My fear is that this list will be quite large. If we only want to omit the very large blobs,

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-13 Thread Jonathan Tan
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:29:11 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > My primary concern is scale and managing the list of objects over time. > > My fear is that this list will be quite large. If we only want to omit > the very large blobs, then maybe not. But if we want to

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-13 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 7/13/2017 10:48 AM, Jeff Hostetler wrote: On 7/12/2017 3:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi, Jeff Hostetler wrote: My primary concern is scale and managing the list of objects over time. [...] For example, on the

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-13 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 7/12/2017 3:28 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Hi, Jeff Hostetler wrote: My primary concern is scale and managing the list of objects over time. [...] For example, on the Windows repo we have (conservatively) 100M+ blobs (and

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-12 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Hi, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > My primary concern is scale and managing the list of objects over time. [...] > For > example, on the Windows repo we have (conservatively) 100M+ blobs (and > growing). Assuming 28 bytes per, gives a

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-12 Thread Jeff Hostetler
On 7/11/2017 3:48 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: Currently, Git does not support repos with very large numbers of blobs or repos that wish to minimize manipulation of certain blobs (for example, because they are very large) very well, even if the user operates mostly on part of the repo, because Git

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-11 Thread Stefan Beller
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Currently, Git does not support repos with very large numbers of blobs > or repos that wish to minimize manipulation of certain blobs (for > example, because they are very large) very well, even if the user >

[RFC PATCH 1/3] promised-blob, fsck: introduce promised blobs

2017-07-11 Thread Jonathan Tan
Currently, Git does not support repos with very large numbers of blobs or repos that wish to minimize manipulation of certain blobs (for example, because they are very large) very well, even if the user operates mostly on part of the repo, because Git is designed on the assumption that every blob