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,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 6A4061F9FD for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:35:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231266AbhCHTeh (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:34:37 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62776 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230373AbhCHTef (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:34:35 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F74FB9CE0; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:34:35 -0500 (EST) (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=vagc+nlj3pe7RTZQQQCtbaFs7Pg=; b=YtMPKZ 3u7lKPIvLATyT2/cxCpAx227Tm9AMqD9yalARlCpj31//4pzSwCC+/48V5OLmBT0 vr/hrRmZY/dzqtOUdyg2Vd/vgcgIe9GmIJnVzsBw83PMs26cyl0Q3kWiM303wPUj FThB300ch8FnKnbBLH9EsvyWGnKmbYsTJEY0Y= 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=XbT8lGO+qbkYqJgiNrZRoOC6rVryJv48 u4GdRmInpXEHdk+lhMYXiliqnhjfkiDlZjQ67w0Mlo3HBQRu1RtsMtNfed+eY287 IIOdiqZKsMLANHK046FzTkqKN1q0GHM37s5+Gey7Yn57YPa2RX4VboKbvQDZKD6E Ch8Z3yM6msY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17628B9CDF; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:34:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97D1EB9CDD; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:34:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, nmulcahey@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch-pack: do not mix --pack_header and packfile uri References: <20210308191424.12149-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 11:34:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20210308191424.12149-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:14:24 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4FE4132E-8045-11EB-B916-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> I dunno how involved the necessary surgery would be, though. If >> this is easy to work around, perhaps it might be a better option for >> the overall project to ship the upcoming release with this listed as >> a known breakage. > > I don't think it's too difficult - I think we'll only need to filter out > the --pack_header when we figure out the arguments to pass for the > packfiles given by URI. I'll take a look. What you sent earlier is a much better band-aid than "keep the single args array but filter an element out in only one codepath" band-aid, I would think. Any change that is more involved than a single-liner trivial bugfix would be too late for this cycle, as we'd be cutting -rc2 by the end of tomorrow. Thanks.