- User Since
- Jul 1 2017, 5:02 PM (28 w, 3 d)
Sun, Jan 14
Another idea to consider is storing changegroup data or bundle2 parts on disk instead of full bundles. Then, we could stream multiple changegroup parts into a larger bundle2 payload.
This patch needs a lot of work. But I'm very supportive of the feature and the preliminary implementation!
I'm generally in favor of this functionality. It enables some interesting server features (such as pullbundles).
This was addressed by D1536.
This was addressed in D1792.
Nice cleanup. Always happy to turn on more lint checks.
Please also remove the double newlines and fix the commit message to abide by our message standards.
Thanks for the improvement.
Fri, Jan 12
We're not using the Accept* HTTP headers, so the use of HTTP 406 is not appropriate. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.6. I believe if you scour the mailing list or even the commit messages, you'll find text explaining why we explicitly chose to not use the Accept headers for protocol negotiation.
Thu, Jan 11
Wed, Jan 10
I'll address this and other review feedback in follow-up patches.
I think we should hold off landing until the native C type is ready. I don't like shipping a performance regression on such low-level code without any other user benefit to offset it. The assumption here is that I'm the only one who will absorb pain from this series lingering. I'm willing to take that hit.