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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS 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 6A66B1F4B4 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730409AbgJNTe5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:34:57 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:60170 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726115AbgJNTe5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:34:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 18436 invoked by uid 109); 14 Oct 2020 19:34:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:34:57 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 20176 invoked by uid 111); 14 Oct 2020 19:34:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:34:56 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:34:56 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Sean McAllister Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Masaya Suzuki , Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] http: automatically retry some requests Message-ID: <20201014193456.GA365553@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20201013191729.2524700-1-smcallis@google.com> <20201013191729.2524700-3-smcallis@google.com> <20201013211453.GB3678071@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 01:10:46PM -0600, Sean McAllister wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:09 PM Sean McAllister wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:14 PM Jeff King wrote: > > > > > > I do think you could be leveraging CURLINFO_RETRY_AFTER rather than > > > implementing your own header parsing, though. > > > > > Ah I didn't know about CURLINFO_RETRY_AFTER, I'll look at that and use > > it if I can. > > > I took a look, it looks like CURLINFO_RETRY_AFTER was only added in > 7.66 (September, 2019), so > I don't think it's reasonable to rely on it for getting the > Retry-After value in this case. I agree that's pretty recent. How important is it that we respect it? I.e., we'd have some sane retry behavior if the header is missing anyway. On older curl versions, how bad would it be to just use that fallback behavior all the time? -Peff