From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1512022D for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 03:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751512AbcKEDze (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:55:34 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:47071 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187AbcKEDzd (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:55:33 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:1cdc:1105:511b:8459:19af:755f] (unknown [IPv6:2607:fb90:1cdc:1105:511b:8459:19af:755f]) (Authenticated sender: josh@joshtriplett.org) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E346EA80C8; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 04:55:29 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20161105014817.vm4ush2wfbblzsc7@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20161104194907.3yxu2rkayfyic4dr@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161105014817.vm4ush2wfbblzsc7@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: Regarding "git log" on "git series" metadata From: Josh Triplett Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 21:55:23 -0600 To: Jeff King , Jacob Keller CC: Junio C Hamano , Git mailing list Message-ID: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On November 4, 2016 7:48:17 PM MDT, Jeff King wrote: >On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:34:34PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> > You might also want fallback rules for storing gitrefs on "old" >servers >> > (e.g., backfilling gitrefs you need if the server didn't them in >the >> > initial fetch). But I guess storing any gitrefs on such a server is >> > inherently dangerous, because the server might prune them at any >time. >> >> Is it possible currently for a protocol extension to result in "oh >the >> server doesn't support this so I'm going to stop pushing"? > >Yes, it would be easy for the client to abort if the server fails to >advertise a particular extension. And the reverse (old client, new server) should work as well? - Josh Triplett