From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, "git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] remote.h: add get_remote_capabilities, request_capabilities
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 09:44:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kbi+g2EnZosyYpAMfj8rFFV45vtgyeEJR3Fe8LG+zut7Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1462310486.4123.81.camel@twopensource.com>
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:21 PM, David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 01:33 -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:57:43PM -0400, David Turner wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 16:34 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> >
>> > > +const char *known_capabilities[] = {
>> > > + "multi_ack",
>> > > + "thin-pack",
>> > > + "side-band",
>> > > + "side-band-64k",
>> > > + "ofs-delta",
>> > > + "shallow",
>> > > + "no-progress",
>> > > + "include-tag",
>> > > + "multi_ack_detailed",
>> > > + "allow-tip-sha1-in-want",
>> > > + "allow-reachable-sha1-in-want",
>> > > + "no-done",
>> > > +};
>> >
>> > I wonder if it is possible to not repeat the list from upload
>> > -pack.c?
>> > It seems unfortunate to have to add the same string in two places
>> > whenever you add a capability.
>>
>> I think that in general, we'd stop adding capabilities to v1. If you
>> have a client which speaks the new capability, then it should also be
>> speaking the new protocol. That's not strictly true if other non
>> -git.git
>> implementations want to learn capability X but not protocol v2, but I
>> think in practice it's not an unreasonable world view.
>>
>> I guess there may be a grey area for a while, though, where even
>> v2-capable clients don't end up speaking it, because they don't yet
>> know
>> that a particular server can handle it. So any capabilities added in
>> that grey area may want to go to both v1 and v2.
>
> OK, but then there should be one list per protocol version rather than
> two copies of the same list.
>
I thought this is by design as upload-pack is a different program, i.e. it
could be developed out of sync with the client, adding/removing
capabilities there but not in fetch-pack. That doesn't make sense though.
We could introduce known_capabilities_v1 and _v2 respectively in shared
header files, though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-04 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-29 23:34 [WIP PATCH 00/14] Protocol v2 patches Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 01/14] upload-pack: make client capability parsing code a separate function Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 02/14] upload-pack.c: Refactor capability advertising Stefan Beller
2016-04-30 1:04 ` David Turner
2016-05-04 20:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 03/14] upload-pack-2: Implement the version 2 of upload-pack Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 17:43 ` David Turner
2016-05-02 17:51 ` Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 18:56 ` David Turner
2016-05-03 0:31 ` Duy Nguyen
2016-05-04 20:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 04/14] connect: rewrite feature parsing to work on string_list Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 18:18 ` David Turner
2016-05-02 18:46 ` Stefan Beller
2016-05-04 20:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-05-17 22:23 ` David Turner
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 05/14] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 06/14] remote.h: add get_remote_capabilities, request_capabilities Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 18:57 ` David Turner
2016-05-03 5:33 ` Jeff King
2016-05-03 21:21 ` David Turner
2016-05-04 16:44 ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 07/14] fetch-pack: move capability selection out of do_fetch_pack Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 08/14] fetch-pack: factor out get_selected_capabilities_list Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 19:09 ` David Turner
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 09/14] fetch-pack: Add negotiate_capabilities Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 10/14] do_fetch_pack: select capabilities for transport version 1 only Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 11/14] builtin/fetch-pack: add argument for transport version Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 12/14] Add test for fetch-pack Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 19:45 ` David Turner
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 13/14] WIP add test for git pull Stefan Beller
2016-04-29 23:34 ` [PATCH 14/14] WIP test git fetch Stefan Beller
2016-05-02 20:41 ` [WIP PATCH 00/14] Protocol v2 patches David Turner
2016-05-02 20:43 ` Stefan Beller
2016-05-24 22:46 ` David Turner
2016-05-24 23:03 ` Duy Nguyen
2016-05-25 16:45 ` David Turner
2016-05-25 16:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-05-25 19:31 ` David Turner
2016-05-25 21:29 ` Jeff King
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=CAGZ79kbi+g2EnZosyYpAMfj8rFFV45vtgyeEJR3Fe8LG+zut7Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=sbeller@google.com \
--cc=dturner@twopensource.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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).