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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,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 275AE1F62E for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727778AbfAQJbx (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 04:31:53 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com ([209.85.128.44]:51852 "EHLO mail-wm1-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727032AbfAQJbx (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 04:31:53 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so287482wmj.1 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:31:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o/bBM4HUwMMtKEKuSbOmxNqsxrgvnm0zCGo0TP+Sf+8=; b=ClqnaxJVvttHw2bCmZZ4Y/66don/7NZqFc2YORvFN0v3sR1rVSW5inVnRG14r3RP7a Avplnb0DzQkpMN2vVvUD5WuYsWVSzOXyeIh8kcUQ3xL7Y9Eq0kfP8yWMbMkKbbgQbjOj Nh33Fsi6qdv7qx2pCFzYjT7HMDu6OxURXf0leWTuehibfz6ZtGtcpI0RdhyudP+qxwBf EE8XXfV5YXOc5dmZgUdZvlJ+GB0/qdlP8+IgvYW94Lh78SloE+3Sy+u5IbVbeJmG2ZRR /WzRtYYYPlw+ro27a76bbBPlU92LNnxZ32u9OaVl+W4lBXJUOKfFsPWHAX6suHtLxOjb mLrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o/bBM4HUwMMtKEKuSbOmxNqsxrgvnm0zCGo0TP+Sf+8=; b=W1sPFAkJ+/nlAlvJGx992PunPugCOiNUJg0F7J//xg2LnEd6Qi9KUGxiwoMlvhs7L9 F3UK4mfsDyEX7Z5tUSXkXBx630SFUWFgBO6JJGcZcxiE1FbbkN9v0a2ScGcHv1cy8q/s U9Zuh+hVvednzveWosMqb7OGGxqLGE/ub2fTkIuwSFkSNgIxx1pHPD4bhvyv/FT7FdlM U4b7Z+N5SNU33SLYoHt+vCep1sMx4qBGQkuT1IpCIrDkOJu7wpF3G/ep3MRoe3mnwQlc 1uKOMD2e1nXeMhfKZ+fAhx2LPJY/ZAH4zkdHNHxCMRACt4NQIDBgVjXfZqkuXf+XcSb/ ktxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUuke+Z4eBqQjHKaUGvF4QhsTK9om0+jRSNMnDGLqH3eMJa2A8UCgB CntkoBSUI97v3qvQ/AgmiLs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4m0YmXFEl5igS2N0DuY3MWbSZSk4aQ2Qx3cThbMphK082UhxIyM3P3wL+bbqQcSl5Dyz07aw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:410b:: with SMTP id o11mr11060065wma.109.1547717511172; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (proxy-gw-l.booking.com. [5.57.20.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm65062087wrs.30.2019.01.17.01.31.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 17 Jan 2019 01:31:50 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [WIP 0/8] Trying to revive GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid; Emacs 26.1; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:31:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87o98f4ol6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 16 2019, Jonathan Tan wrote: > =C3=86var, are you planning to revive GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION? I have > updated the patchset in light of some new branches that have appeared. > > This is on master merged with: > - jk/proto-v2-hidden-refs-fix > - tg/t5570-drop-racy-test > - js/protocol-advertise-multi > - jt/upload-pack-deepen-relative-proto-v2 > - jt/fetch-pack-v2 I'm happy to have you pick that up as you've done here, especially since you're actually working on v2 and I'm not, so you can more easily know what it conflicts with etc. I just wanted to have it in one way or another, i.e. be able to deploy v2 and assert that "next + custom patches" doesn't break something for v2. I think [CC: Junio] that we shouldn't be concerned about an addition of GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION patches in any form breaking the test suite under GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=3D2, and just be concerned about the default GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=3D case. I.e. if we have v2 patches in-flight that break things no big deal, we can always circle back and fix those things or annotate the tests.