From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7C11F40E for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:48:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932671AbcHCVsX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:48:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:36620 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758401AbcHCVsE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:48:04 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id q128so464256505wma.1 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:48:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MRBMlbytUXtGrGUM9ELtZTn6nyVveF96Aew9S5iDrQg=; b=R+ETW4zuZX269PLKRMfzxG+Zduya+8A328DQbPMyjIDGe/IAEvW66vNE0UrwofRHME K/ihFJ8M8L3Lbvk81wWML5olgcI6T5lYOcItJIljq6GEnF3FCdOhyzWU3qVBIpFux75P +3Hk0NgqnsBo8y+tJ+PjB0QL5smngxGcYeqHkyEhURqCybG3dOPstRJunRUfHSi0GGGm w+/JdAdDoy824W8VT626lvRkdpCNXCwDQt9xu1uvV3j8wVZPNmsLYxI+Py8xoU1X9MPy gaC7G0YFHxCfpscb9Pmq4xFSeC7HOEr8lrwg5M79lbeO76EAd7UecKI320Q2EryCy5BV evUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MRBMlbytUXtGrGUM9ELtZTn6nyVveF96Aew9S5iDrQg=; b=Uk/QFI1MOg8p5iPQaYzAxRN9uLd1kd+g/gGNwYS1eVpewLJIiE438Bfz+HUiTLpqkB BfDKCiljTdl76RUVeiuHABwpDYzgk9FVKPwNTrNdxULwvthLtSp7wtvX2h1NBjTRtq+2 BKd6MKzkFmtUwOkBovwdF0dgN1jyQ6YQvgJc7luZmG6TIpEZjzYtvauuK5rDTgu4SG5j 68SnaoI/7X80VHbnxK9thtvvxSyrbxqENS0kIfTGv5vngGLR6rvHCIcRBeGFpznjpJfz yc7A1UDf+2VKcjNZQ/qXookEX+5NlFWxYMn0KlL3inaN8l/s+BHtdtx8Zx/4xNfMfLu4 0VCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousuyjFV2D4zkrE6VbyLazInXg1W4cX8+mOZq9Oc8R371Ph52IOtpI8kqjhDZ0+kJA== X-Received: by 10.28.35.86 with SMTP id j83mr65727307wmj.18.1470260882695; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slxbook4.fritz.box (p5DDB674A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.219.103.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v189sm386198wmv.12.2016.08.03.14.48.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option From: Lars Schneider In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:48:00 +0200 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jnareb@gmail.com, tboegi@web.de, mlbright@gmail.com, e@80x24.org, peff@peff.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <0E3FC781-1B2C-4341-9B7B-D9D836596A35@gmail.com> References: <20160729233801.82844-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-12-larsxschneider@gmail.com> To: Junio C Hamano X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:45, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > larsxschneider@gmail.com writes: > >> packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n >> packet: git< version=2\n >> packet: git< capabilities=clean smudge\n > > During the discussion on the future of pack-protocol, it was pointed > out that having to shove all capabilities on a single line/packet > was one of the things we would want to fix in the current protocol > when we revamp to v2. As this exhange between the convert machinery > and an external process is a brand new one, I do not think you want > to mimic the limitation in the current pack protocol like this; the > limitation mostly came from the constraint that we cannot break > existing pack protocol clients and servers before we extended the > protocol to add capabilities. > > You may not foresee that the caps won't grow very long beyond > clean/smudge right now, just like we did not foresee that we would > wish to be able to convey a lot longer capability values to the > other side when we added the capability exchange to the pack > protocol, so "but but but we will never have that many" is not a > good counter-argument. OK. Is this the v2 discussion you are referring to? http://public-inbox.org/git/1461972887-22100-1-git-send-email-sbeller%40google.com/ What format do you suggest? packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n packet: git< version=2\n packet: git< capability=clean\n packet: git< capability=smudge\n packet: git< 0000 or packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n packet: git< version=2\n packet: git< capability\n packet: git< clean\n packet: git< smudge\n packet: git< 0000 or ... ? I would prefer the first one, I think. - Lars