From 4dbdc42d9e7c3968ff7f690d00680419c9b8cb0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:34:27 +0200 Subject: Adding upstream version 1:2.43.0. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt (limited to 'Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt') diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9d453d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +Packfile URIs +============= + +This feature allows servers to serve part of their packfile response as URIs. +This allows server designs that improve scalability in bandwidth and CPU usage +(for example, by serving some data through a CDN), and (in the future) provides +some measure of resumability to clients. + +This feature is available only in protocol version 2. + +Protocol +-------- + +The server advertises the `packfile-uris` capability. + +If the client then communicates which protocols (HTTPS, etc.) it supports with +a `packfile-uris` argument, the server MAY send a `packfile-uris` section +directly before the `packfile` section (right after `wanted-refs` if it is +sent) containing URIs of any of the given protocols. The URIs point to +packfiles that use only features that the client has declared that it supports +(e.g. ofs-delta and thin-pack). See linkgit:gitprotocol-v2[5] for the documentation of +this section. + +Clients should then download and index all the given URIs (in addition to +downloading and indexing the packfile given in the `packfile` section of the +response) before performing the connectivity check. + +Server design +------------- + +The server can be trivially made compatible with the proposed protocol by +having it advertise `packfile-uris`, tolerating the client sending +`packfile-uris`, and never sending any `packfile-uris` section. But we should +include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product, +at least so that we can test the client. + +This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri= + ` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain +single blobs. + +Client design +------------- + +The client has a config variable `fetch.uriprotocols` that determines which +protocols the end user is willing to use. By default, this is empty. + +When the client downloads the given URIs, it should store them with "keep" +files, just like it does with the packfile in the `packfile` section. These +additional "keep" files can only be removed after the refs have been updated - +just like the "keep" file for the packfile in the `packfile` section. + +The division of work (initial fetch + additional URIs) introduces convenient +points for resumption of an interrupted clone - such resumption can be done +after the Minimum Viable Product (see "Future work"). + +Future work +----------- + +The protocol design allows some evolution of the server and client without any +need for protocol changes, so only a small-scoped design is included here to +form the MVP. For example, the following can be done: + + * On the server, more sophisticated means of excluding objects (e.g. by + specifying a commit to represent that commit and all objects that it + references). + * On the client, resumption of clone. If a clone is interrupted, information + could be recorded in the repository's config and a "clone-resume" command + can resume the clone in progress. (Resumption of subsequent fetches is more + difficult because that must deal with the user wanting to use the repository + even after the fetch was interrupted.) + +There are some possible features that will require a change in protocol: + + * Additional HTTP headers (e.g. authentication) + * Byte range support + * Different file formats referenced by URIs (e.g. raw object) -- cgit v1.2.3