From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC/Add documentation for version protocol 2 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:30:17 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1429658342-5295-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Martin Fick , Duy Nguyen To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 23 01:30:25 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl465-00006J-Ag for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:30:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933151AbbDVXaU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:30:20 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:54312 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933110AbbDVXaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:30:19 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF514BD0D; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT) 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=EFgS0Fr3cjUS4VkaRHlKSzwcjmQ=; b=yi+Zjh ngIgBGW3Djeeta5tnr3OUkktaGb7BNazXXY989Z80Q03OsEroyfNWTO0RgxQqrOm /MLfBIfmn/7FZc+lHRSMOvvFR8BkoirqU4ld05qXtK1EXW1B6rg7tk3UB3onYqV0 tJlVPUYvfWeaF+idf/BjwP0ZyOj7lIxA/BC1M= 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=s0jRiuwvv78x92Ckdc5vhAgEpFdPwc57 xbWAChf15GVYLm3d89TFjgAtc/xn9imC5r2U2nqNmxz1mTWCZMXAG6LxFgt+JUks FWZdcxxVCMrq+slLkJx1WUC/w1Up4PM+NBRTXIdHk5OKh170BIGsgRbZT1mjOEm2 D0w/SbqpqlA= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9481F4BD0C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C1B04BD0B; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:30:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:43:20 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 892C3288-E947-11E4-9460-83E09F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Stefan Beller writes: >>> +action = "noop" / "ls-remote" / "fetch" / "push" / "fetch-shallow" > ... >> If we are going in this "in-protocol message switches the service" >> route, we should also support "archive" as one of the actions, no? >> Yes, I know you named the document "pack-protocol" and "archive" >> does not give you packs, but "ls-remote" does not transfer pack data, >> either. > > I'll add that. Also I need to incorporate shallow in one way or another. This level of detail may not matter at this point yet, but it is unclear to me why you have "fetch-shallow" as a separate thing (while not having "push-shallow"). The current infrastructure does already allow fetching into shallow repositories witout needing a separate action that is different from "fetch" (aka "upload-pack"). I would not be surprised if it were "I can deepn you if you want" capability, but I do not understand why you are singling out "shallow" as something that needs such a special treatment.