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-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D23A1F55B for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728883AbgFAXUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:20:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59490 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726181AbgFAXUe (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:20:34 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb4a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb4a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b4a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D22E0C05BD43 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb4a.google.com with SMTP id y7so14684041ybj.15 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Bj69sOXrJpc7fsJ96qgxL3K6MdKrYYcMQQ3fPtftdpY=; b=pK8YTN1IAGatX4VxSpvK5Gmz4dunMbtarNd3A93o7rFb0ndKN7N4wzRdW7VEz8L4J1 WK+cu/YYus6TZoQreaxtCQOPyTZkuWqbx+tZ1i/cmwqGQ4nd8736HvUr0twJNhIcii7H tOjizfq4P8cdD81jAEG/bmdyPvT+ASH3qWmC/WV4GwTuTIj5fZnTEVujQVbpp66+fODD aP/KI1Bob4EDyym/yS6lRnox04hD9VfKaEOWvq71t5Ka4lDudE8kX3o28Y7gDWvQuU4x iYBSyh+y3xbS6EK7CLeU3eOQflzh5N//yVGq7y1M2JSxUN5jzYt67NGPXu/ZUQ2Mt8Pq SqYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Bj69sOXrJpc7fsJ96qgxL3K6MdKrYYcMQQ3fPtftdpY=; b=Li8S6jlWfdzddrGYLCxC3DQgzD8OGQhsEUIxAiR9SWWLHIwYLVPuJDunlqSh0HuhMj R5aytZvdplFGb2kGBb0ZLahLzLJDIYBJu6HMuk5xeFWacCrhE3iBy5ghOpZtD4hdjxA/ 4PUpeg8XdsNLibA/Vu3hLYOEK28CZZgmTSSJgyt+nyc82N2kphvLl+tYbBrod1Mh0+GL FuS/AqkUGref7QtWxkG15h9Pa5N1wHr+NdghhJLtZkzHq978N+AI6l4g6/hxSkt7sV8b DHqZR6Yjlx6pOJX+yXSv1Md5nf540u6DsYPgFL6BEsci+L+0as7as1ol7y1/5wkaah2B 8u3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530FdWBj7qWi2tGMc+AnM9jD8VuxC1C67dVkTLFRxyRdwdGvLkmK NZ7tKfCTjYCSkUFplmQIu5Zdy7mDdGTvpdZhW/SH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwhsZ5aS/LjURkdD55s2XKfM2ph7qzeBtmQ8lyN+ehkjAXI9CDjPgA3C3aa/wIFj7N5u/aa6T42K40cqFKKNqAX X-Received: by 2002:a25:b701:: with SMTP id t1mr17712616ybj.515.1591053633081; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:20:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20200601232031.261207-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.27.0.rc2.251.g90737beb825-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] upload-pack: send part of packfile response as uri From: Jonathan Tan To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > Jonathan Tan writes: > > > static void create_pack_file(const struct object_array *have_obj, > > const struct object_array *want_obj, > > - struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options) > > + struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options, > > + const struct string_list *uri_protocols) > > { > > I wanted to see why you rebased on top of 'next' to see possible > interactions with topics in-flight, and I found out that this series > was trivial to rebase on 'master'. > > The codebase however is moving in the direction to reduce the number > of parameters this function takes, and the above change does not > play well with the cc/upload-pack-data-2 topic that cleans up the > code around this area. > > Can you help review cc/upload-pack-data and cc/upload-pack-data-2 > topics, as you'd eventually be basing your topic on top of the > result of merging these two clean-up topics to 'master'? The former > is already in 'next' after Peff's review, and after finding nothing > glaringly wrong in it, I am not so worried about it, but the latter > may benefit from an extra set of eyes. > > Thanks. OK - I'll take a look tomorrow.