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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767381F5AF for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232374AbhC2Kkf (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:40:35 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:35286 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231716AbhC2KkS (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:40:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 10077 invoked by uid 109); 29 Mar 2021 10:40:18 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:40:18 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 12062 invoked by uid 111); 29 Mar 2021 10:40:19 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:40:19 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 06:40:17 -0400 From: Jeff King To: "lilinchao@oschina.cn" Cc: Junio C Hamano , git Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remote-curl.c: handle v1 when check_smart_http Message-ID: References: <20210324053648.25584-1-lilinchao@oschina.cn> <006547b28c6311eb93820024e87935e7@oschina.cn> <68765f14907111eb8e180024e87935e7@oschina.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <68765f14907111eb8e180024e87935e7@oschina.cn> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 05:30:29PM +0800, lilinchao@oschina.cn wrote: > >Anyway, that's all just an interesting side note. The client is happy > >with either form (though it might be nice if we had tests for the "# > >service" form; I suspect our tests don't cover that because they are all > >using http-backend). > > > >Getting back to the patch at hand, if there is a server saying "version > >1" without a "service" line, then I think that is a bug in that server. > > > If the problem is on the server side, then, is this patch worth continuing? IMHO, no. I think the response from gitee.com is violating the protocol spec. It would be nice to fix, but in practice it isn't all that important because somebody would have to manually set protocol.version=1 to see the problem. -Peff