From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS54825 147.75.80.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from am.mirrors.kernel.org (am.mirrors.kernel.org [147.75.80.249]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7798D1F44D for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by am.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 204BA1F224A2 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EE469969; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D703236 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710229526; cv=none; b=G2g2dPzOcb/dqsUSE5Qi6aG0fPAaiUvuYQJ1e800CPlBWk6VtVsyUIFJyAaI0y0pjJ99aCy/I46LV7b9Qk2ZqNxZSc30tua5wpy4J0IjzENXJEPpE6rMY+9fzPTnDMUrOKA2OgbXtz68sH6WnKpBYnKcK1eBx2/wysPGtEbhO9s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710229526; c=relaxed/simple; bh=05f5Gf1pQSokn80bEdQVsWJISc3uLVsNSl17x2E6kHg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZkSuwN1Ixu8uwlpTs+I9DYbaj+qii+wSO+WuCIsl+vmMfR25pgqOvXm7a+jqG9vUrlngP6rVjMqHIeOmwXoAevk/vJHv7FQ/uLRgsFYav9n6XN1utg00mwi1WUogje0snoO2p0CEege0l+BkRvkK0m+8yXNKZsrA8ueYEOCNwcM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 14218 invoked by uid 109); 12 Mar 2024 07:45:17 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 07:45:17 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27409 invoked by uid 111); 12 Mar 2024 07:45:18 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:45:18 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 03:45:13 -0400 From: Jeff King To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc/gitremote-helpers: match object-format option docs to code Message-ID: <20240312074513.GA47852@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20240307084735.GA2072130@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240307085632.GB2072294@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:20:16PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > As I discussed in patch 1, remote-curl does handle the "true" thing > > correctly. And that's really the helper that matters in practice (it's > > possible some third party helper is looking for the explicit "true", but > > presumably they'd have reported their confusion to the list). So we > > could probably just start tacking on the "true" in transport-helper.c > > and leave that part of the documentation untouched. > > > > I'm less sure of the specific-algorithm thing, just because it seems > > like remote-curl would never make use of it anyway (preferring instead > > to match whatever algorithm is used by the http remote). But maybe there > > are pending interoperability plans that depend on this? > > It was designed to allow indicating that we know how to support both > SHA-1 and SHA-256 and we want one or the other (so we don't need to do > an expensive conversion). However, if it's not implemented, I agree we > should document what's implemented, and then extend it when interop > comes. I guess my reservation is that when it _does_ come time to extend, we'll have to introduce a new capability. The capability "object-format" has a documented meaning now, and what we send is currently a subset of that (sort of[1]). If we later start sending an explicit algorithm, then in theory they're supposed to handle that, too, if they implemented against the docs. Whereas if we roll back the explicit-algorithm part of the docs, now we can't assume any helper claiming "object-format" will understand it. And we'll need them to say "object-format-extended" or something. That's both more work, and delays adoption for helpers which implemented what the current docs say. So I guess my question was more of: are we thinking this explicit algorithm thing is coming very soon? If so, it might be worth keeping it in the docs. But if not, and it's just a hypothetical future, it may be better to clean things up now. And I ask you as the person who mostly juggles possible future algorithm plans in his head. ;) Of course if the answer is some combination of "I don't really remember what the plan was" and "I don't have time to work on it anytime soon" that's OK, too. -Peff [1] In the above I'm really just talking about the explicit-algorithm part. The "sort of" is that we claim to send "object-format true" but actually just send "object-format". There I'm more inclined to just align the docs with practice, as the two are equivalent.