Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] docs: document bundle URI standard

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:13:28 -0700

Derrick Stolee <[email-masked]> writes:

> Further, the provider might want to cover a large number of refs,
> not just the default ref. That would increase the size of the
> table of contents more than necessary.
>
> With these things in mind, I do still think bundles are a good
> way to store and share this data.

If you keep the refs and filter information separately from the
packdata (i.e. in the table-of-contents like I outlined in the
message you are responding to), one downside is that you lose these
pieces of information but still have packfiles, such an accident
would make the set of packfiles pretty much useless.

But if you have bundles, the filter information to be placed in the
table-of-contents can be recovered from them.  Which is much better.
I wonder if we should add more to the bundle, like what we would
write to the .timestamp field of the table-of-contents, though, if
we are to go in that direction.

Thanks.