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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 71AED1F55B for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 17:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728167AbgEaRfe (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2020 13:35:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:64332 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726193AbgEaRfe (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 May 2020 13:35:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC28CDCCF; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:35:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=uCKV9Ni2pdY5BwfOIvC8k/g4ndk=; b=blXQbz MQcw0MrjC4WLEfcgqy8QpZhefcwEELy57G1szIrjd0v3PjPpVnqnI2pWadX5/iKt FIQVo0OLZo594ixeMblm2c6sBrnoIj6tyDj79WG0mpkWNEp4VWY/QU3NDgbySmJE aE/YfJ7GXW7w01etu5dFp8noA3ChBs5SfCxek= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wEUcxuye+el4lLY+rQHqvYZgv+JEcaiV YoF6iJgCnyFordPhfw452lwPKYv/n/oj6THtLh63CM9b2QXjNF72dRbC6sdkaxDE 1GKl1G8JNgKyLfb74FosPPthVGY+twZQpmip0hoH3MpNDs7Qt1s8h7KSDlk39VmO WBAv/VYzL28= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85351CDCCE; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:35:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EA28CDCCA; Sun, 31 May 2020 13:35:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] upload-pack: send part of packfile response as uri References: <2cfee363873736d9ff73cd38d96f3533bb49c904.1590789428.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 10:35:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2cfee363873736d9ff73cd38d96f3533bb49c904.1590789428.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Fri, 29 May 2020 15:30:20 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1F13E2DC-A365-11EA-A168-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > static void create_pack_file(const struct object_array *have_obj, > const struct object_array *want_obj, > - struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options) > + struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options, > + const struct string_list *uri_protocols) > { I wanted to see why you rebased on top of 'next' to see possible interactions with topics in-flight, and I found out that this series was trivial to rebase on 'master'. The codebase however is moving in the direction to reduce the number of parameters this function takes, and the above change does not play well with the cc/upload-pack-data-2 topic that cleans up the code around this area. Can you help review cc/upload-pack-data and cc/upload-pack-data-2 topics, as you'd eventually be basing your topic on top of the result of merging these two clean-up topics to 'master'? The former is already in 'next' after Peff's review, and after finding nothing glaringly wrong in it, I am not so worried about it, but the latter may benefit from an extra set of eyes. Thanks.