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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, 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 E04271F66F for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 21:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732181AbgKEVBd (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:01:33 -0500 Received: from siwi.pair.com ([209.68.5.199]:12072 "EHLO siwi.pair.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726729AbgKEVBd (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:01:33 -0500 Received: from siwi.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by siwi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29583F5FB8; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from jeffhost-mbp.local (162-238-212-202.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net [162.238.212.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by siwi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A984E3F5FB5; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:01:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Advertise trace2 SID in protocol capabilities To: Junio C Hamano , Josh Steadmon Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Hostetler References: <4f1a1bab-7ac7-b8dd-acb2-6aeb04be3171@jeffhostetler.com> <20201102222020.GA1904687@google.com> From: Jeff Hostetler Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:01:32 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 11/3/20 4:22 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Steadmon writes: > >>> So the value being passed between client and server over the >>> protocol may look like `//` rather than just a >>> single `` term. For your purposes, do you want or care if >>> you get the single term or the full SID ? >> >> I'm not sure we care too much one way or the other. A single component >> of the SID should be enough to join client & server logs, but it's >> easier to just send the whole thing. > > It may be worth documenting this design decision in the protocol > doc; even though protocol doc may say this should be treated as an > opaque token, people may assume certain structure. > good point. let me make a note to revisit that text. thanks Jeff