From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 06/11] remote.h: add get_remote_capabilities, request_capabilities Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:08:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20150529220811.GA15678@peff.net> References: <1432677675-5118-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <1432677675-5118-7-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <20150527064521.GD885@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" , Duy Nguyen , Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 30 00:08:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YySRw-0008KC-5v for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 30 May 2015 00:08:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757315AbbE2WIQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 18:08:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:37938 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757194AbbE2WIO (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 18:08:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 26648 invoked by uid 102); 29 May 2015 22:08:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 17:08:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 9530 invoked by uid 107); 29 May 2015 22:08:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 18:08:13 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 May 2015 18:08:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:39:35PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > I think this is the reverse case of next_capabilities in the upload-pack > > side, so I'll make the reverse suggestion. :) Would it make things nicer > > if both v1 and v2 parsed the capabilities into a string_list? > > Ok, I'll do that. Though this makes future enhancements a bit uneasy. > Say we want to transport a message by the server admins, this might be > the right place to do. > > if (starts_with("message")) > fprintf(stderr, .... > > Of course we can later add this in the future, but it would break older > clients (clients as of this patch series). That's why I like the idea of > adding a prefix here. Maybe just a "c:" as an abbreviation for capability. I don't understand how that breaks existing clients. Under your scheme, the older client says "message? That does not start with capability:, so I must ignore it". Without the "capability:" flag, it becomes "message? I do not know that type, so I must ignore it". -Peff