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-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273E520A1E for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 00:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726032AbeLIAPl (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:15:41 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55226 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726019AbeLIAPk (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:15:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579232DE10; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:15:40 -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=ZXWvPSCMjYvgFZCtUlQoWGWE3Ws=; b=s+THrR RAwCxUvgiO+qwYQdzWMi5+rX7kOmjdeWDMcLgNxEanjzntYAVj8IG8ZaV9JYbUkg SE9+10C29DbO3hr6GWpCXhniMG92ouSyZq0AVwWwMfUUKMWrqiAgtTw6o260wLnZ hPOMz7RnFqZOd+INYFpPRlyyQTVoSsPoFYszE= 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=lG7EokIl1IsQtuGfGKffR8q7DgHVxgOq SARrCmVczdinjPzPgkB8pxQH9yx6kNCd5QPdEM8PaKSalxiep9xN564wMJhD16a8 ZNfuTZDt6i7/7iLED3DXkCBLIk7za2AbZtm4Y2xAuhP1BPtT2UiZmpJl0g4urcPs oF4zgUkl8V0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5058A2DE0F; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:15:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.155.68.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67CC72DE0D; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 19:15:37 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [WIP RFC 1/5] Documentation: order protocol v2 sections References: <20181206225431.135449-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 09:15:35 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20181206225431.135449-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:54:31 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8DC2B964-FB47-11E8-8643-CC883AD79A78-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> > The git command line expects Git servers to follow a specific order of >> >> "Command line"? It sounds like you are talking about the order of >> command line arguments and options, but apparently that is not what >> you are doing. Is it "The git over-the-wire protocol"? > > I meant to say the current Git implementation, as opposed to what is > written in the specification. I'll replace it with "The current C Git > implementation". Yeah, that would avoid confusing future readers; sounds good. >> Earlier, we said that shallow-info is not given when packfile is not >> there. That is captured in the updated EBNF above. We don't have a >> corresponding removal of a bullet point for wanted-refs section below >> but probably that is because the original did not have corresponding >> bullet point to begin with. > > That's because the corresponding bullet point had other information. > Quoted in full below: > >> * This section is only included if the client has requested a >> ref using a 'want-ref' line and if a packfile section is also >> included in the response. > > I could reword it to "If a packfile section is included in the response, > this section is only included if the client has requested a ref using a > 'want-ref' line", but I don't think that is significantly clearer. I don't either. I didn't mean to suggest to change anything in this part. I was just giving an observation---two parallel things do not get updates in tandem, and that is because they were not described the same way to begin with, which was a good enough explanation.