From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22DE1F453 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728038AbfBUNsA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:48:00 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:52548 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727553AbfBUNsA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:48:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 20340 invoked by uid 109); 21 Feb 2019 13:48:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:48:01 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 12465 invoked by uid 111); 21 Feb 2019 13:48:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:48:13 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:47:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:47:58 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Protocol v2 fix: http and auth Message-ID: <20190221134758.GB21406@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:06:34AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > Peff noticed an issue with my http auth in protocol v2 patch earlier > [1], and in the ensuing discussion, I thought that it would be best to > make v2 use post_rpc() as well (to be the same as v0/v1) instead of > using its own functions, to fix this issue and try to avoid a similar > issue in the future. Besides that, there is also a net reduction in > lines of code. > > So here are the patches. First 4 are refactoring - the last one has the > actual change. This is on the master branch. I think this is the right approach. Patches 1-4 look pretty nice. I didn't see anything wrong with the code in the 5th one, but I did have some thoughts about how we might be able to do it a bit more cleanly (though I will not at all be surprised if they turn out to be bad suggestions). -Peff