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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 20DA41F487 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:22:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726197AbgCaRW0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:22:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:51414 "EHLO mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726194AbgCaRW0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:22:26 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id z7so753510wmk.1 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=d2dOr4ZxDnnsdaMKQV2e2xTOUEQAecZefGGXrnSV+Ks=; b=Ks73nIqdIwz4rpp8WwGYphZkOVftU2V9XgYPhj7p06Glx307m8OaKBQXu5cpOCWIis +AUimkuex9MxvW7AxzT7nZ1w4nyVvgiNS4nRPZuLHt4o4W0C8TCVtb7WYBUjGRMq2qLI q76YllZEws4Jjbx8hRR37OHs/T3E1cFR+CZzc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=d2dOr4ZxDnnsdaMKQV2e2xTOUEQAecZefGGXrnSV+Ks=; b=lxqTlECYI0hHqKY2AN8oY52GHSAVAWe8/t05muqghIKqeko9+U489Kdu6h1VUXAtcj 4u9IwuglvXhgk2XXXw+1n83O8WPWqOCgH2T/MBlnxApkXecOFdtpLPtIG3lF3pYOC43I uT6qKNxJ1mSYFDEb8voXz0x+eFuBxcC5rVMAr1flwihBglGsZ9qUAMKwUx1FJl8nGcac GMIYl2X1/zPmVCWzy7CU1ccMwi2cqObejH29DHt3b2rEWY7+ZeDy4laiiIKZTkAQpVhf jQe3q5qUpU8T9wkHt9HRZAQg2Oj9uyHMqdhlrAAPp0wNN82K34me2j49CcizOW9EmAqv zXSA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0OZUKn1FU0eY9XCmddBOkAeRCa+c9jUxxywfVKLOo3D0xEcaIs Jv0VmBjKo/S24Gr7r2pWXT7NsA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvakZsPrUsz5JNCbUe7AfZjURVljDhByr4WfwU517kv7o1dcL0Br7EfDkeWsHHmacVwUduzOA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c4d0:: with SMTP id g16mr4449507wmk.101.1585675343940; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chatter.i7.local ([185.220.102.6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w66sm4786530wma.38.2020.03.31.10.22.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:22:18 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Josep Torra Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible regression in git 2.26.0 Message-ID: <20200331172218.evsoljccfmjec2mz@chatter.i7.local> Mail-Followup-To: Josep Torra , git@vger.kernel.org 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 Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:13:25PM +0200, Josep Torra wrote: > Today I'd noticed a failure in some custom automation that seems to > came as a side effect after of a git client update. > > The issue issue I'd spotted is the following: > > $ git clone git://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/bionic > linux/bionic > Cloning into 'linux/bionic'... > fatal: remote error: Parameters must have values > > Reverting to git 2.17.1 didn't show the issue. > > I'd asked at #git in freenode and @rafasc was able to reproduce and > bisect, pointing to > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/684ceae32dae726c6a5c693b257b156926aba8b7 > > For the time being I'd added `-c protocol.version=0` as a temporary workaround. > > Is this a regression? I'd like to relay the following conversation I had recently: 06:00 anyone know why git recently has fetched basically a whole kernel repo when I try to update some trees/branches 06:00 this has happened to me for three separate trees over the past few days 06:01 none were on git.kernel.org 11:31 sfr: if you have an example of the tree/branch that caused you to download a lot for a simple pull, I'd be interested in knowing what it is so I can poke. 16:26 mricon: last evening it was fetching the drm tree (git://git.freedesktop.org/git/drm/drm.git branch drm-next): 16:26 remote: Enumerating objects: 7237633, done. 16:26 remote: Counting objects: 100% (7237633/7237633), done. 16:26 remote: Compressing objects: 100% (1069838/1069838), done. 16:26 remote: Total 7237633 (delta 6121918), reused 7236008 (delta 6120350) 16:26 Receiving objects: 100% (7237633/7237633), 1.32 GiB | 642.00 KiB/s, done. 16:26 Resolving deltas: 100% (6121918/6121918), done. 16:26 From git://git.freedesktop.org/git/drm/drm 16:26 c2556238120bc..700d6ab987f3b drm-next -> drm/drm-next 16:30 sfr: interesting. What's your git version? 16:30 $ git --version 16:30 git version 2.26.0 16:31 Debian, so may have some extra patches 16:35 sfr: git-2.26.0 switched to protocol v2 by default, so I'm curious if that is what changed 16:35 but I've been using protocol v2 for a while now, and I don't see this problem 16:36 I also don't yet have git-2.26.0 16:37 sfr: if you come across another repo that shows this problem, I suggest you set protocol.version=1 in your .gitconfig to see if that makes any difference 16:37 mricon: ok, thanks 16:38 total shot in the dark 16:46 mricon: that *seems* to make a difference 16:47 repo: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc branch: for-linux-next 16:48 went from trying to transfer 7226542 to just 19 16:48 even after I did a reset of the remote branch at my end and a gc 16:49 it updated b1e7396a1d0e..98878d9dfc7a 16:50 in case it matters, I have "tagopt = --no-tags" set for all the repos I fetch (for obvious reasons) 16:52 removing the protocol.version=1 (and resetting/gcing) gets me the bad behaviour again :-( 16:52 mricon: so good shot! :-) It appears that there are cases where protocol.version=2 is causing weird results during ref negotiation? -K