From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:54:57 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACsJy8B_r_0nP9NyKFBnr9bXgwjx8dJkSVkHbZw+Mxin_YpZZw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk2yy80mq.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> My recollection is that the consensus from the last time we
> discussed protocol revamping was to list one capability per packet
> so that packet length limit does not matter, but you may want to
> check with the list archive yourself.
I couldn't find that consensus mail, but this one [1] is good enough
evidence that we can hit packet length limit in capability line
easily.
With an escape hatch to allow maximum packet length up to uint_max, I
think we'll be fine for a long time even if we don't send one cap per
pkt-line. So I'm trying to see if we really want to go with one cap
per pkt-line..
Pros:
- better memory management, current pkt-line static buffer is probably fine
- a capability can contain spaces after '='
Cons:
- some refactoring needed to hide away differences between v1 and v2
Looks like one cap per pkt-line is winning..
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/237929
--
Duy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-04 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-24 3:12 [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2 Stefan Beller
2015-02-24 3:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] Document protocol capabilities extension Stefan Beller
2015-02-24 3:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] receive-pack: add advertisement of different protocol options Stefan Beller
2015-02-24 3:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] receive-pack: enable protocol v2 Stefan Beller
2015-02-24 4:02 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/3] " Duy Nguyen
2015-02-24 5:40 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-24 6:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-24 23:37 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-25 12:44 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-02-25 18:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-26 7:31 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-26 10:15 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-02-26 20:08 ` Stefan Beller
[not found] ` <CACsJy8DOS_999ZgW7TqsH-dkrUFpjZf0TFQeFUt9s0bNhHY0Bw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-02-27 22:20 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-26 20:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-27 1:26 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-27 2:15 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-27 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-27 23:44 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 0:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-28 0:46 ` Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/5] protocol v2 for upload-pack Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/5] upload-pack: only accept capabilities on the first "want" line Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/5] upload-pack: support out of band client capability requests Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 7:47 ` Kyle J. McKay
2015-02-28 11:22 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-02-28 22:36 ` Kyle J. McKay
2015-03-01 0:11 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-02-28 11:36 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 3/5] connect.c: connect to a remote service with some flags Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 11:11 ` Torsten Bögershausen
2015-03-01 3:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 4/5] daemon.c: accept extra service arguments Stefan Beller
2015-03-01 3:39 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-02-28 1:01 ` [RFC/PATCH 5/5] WIP/Document the http protocol change Stefan Beller
2015-02-28 12:26 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-01 9:11 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/5] protocol v2 for upload-pack Johannes Sixt
2015-03-02 2:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-02 3:47 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2 Junio C Hamano
2015-03-02 9:21 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-02 9:24 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-03 10:33 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-03 17:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-03 19:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-04 1:54 ` Duy Nguyen [this message]
2015-03-04 4:27 ` Shawn Pearce
2015-03-04 12:05 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-04 19:10 ` Shawn Pearce
2015-03-05 1:03 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-05 16:03 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-24 17:42 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-24 18:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-06 23:38 ` [PATCH] protocol upload-pack-v2 Stefan Beller
2015-03-06 23:40 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-06 23:55 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-07 0:00 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-07 0:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-07 4:28 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-07 5:21 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-08 20:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-31 19:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-02 12:37 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-04-02 14:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-02 22:18 ` Martin Fick
2015-04-02 22:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-02 23:00 ` Stefan Beller
2015-04-02 23:14 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-10 1:38 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-10 19:36 ` Kyle J. McKay
2015-02-28 0:07 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2 Duy Nguyen
2015-02-28 0:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-01 8:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-01 11:32 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-03-01 19:56 ` Stefan Beller
2015-03-02 1:05 ` David Lang
2015-03-01 23:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-02 1:09 ` David Lang
2015-03-02 3:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-01 23:06 ` Philip Oakley
2015-03-02 9:32 ` Duy Nguyen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACsJy8B_r_0nP9NyKFBnr9bXgwjx8dJkSVkHbZw+Mxin_YpZZw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sbeller@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).