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=-4.2 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,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 5B5741F462 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 17:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727557AbfE1R7f (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 13:59:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50516 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726576AbfE1R7f (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 13:59:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC4014976F; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:59:33 -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=l7xgilu9vJB7PV0gMUiXpszNpDU=; b=F/JIYR 0TENrimSqaR78fxOcIyf7ToJ+nNwkhJujDo6SibxSbyjuJgNUe438DiZ8DCuQc6C Q+CuAvFE/i+SulcGC6q1vV534AMm54gXrMlVYpxj3wQDWsNBdX8TaZxsYY27gWR8 Arl6pnE9/nAneNYjg2N3RV1s+b9+NGZwthRKs= 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=H+28fDj0tmuFaC4mz1UPMWhUebA30L7O PzApVnh6GNyKWYLkisGuLFuZTpyBdbI3s7HpqGBVYSUmUhgwdETYo6FTv/tuR/Qt VbNX1/04kCL8tmkHKJA41nouFO7/1ZmL4n6D3tCN6zLDqBikAYpuK7PgPP2N+IJC pjEA3YrB+SE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018E314976E; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B5EA14976D; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:59:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Matthew DeVore , jonathantanmy@google.com, jrn@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com, jrnieder@gmail.com, pclouds@gmail.com, matvore@comcast.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] list-objects-filter: implement composite filters References: <1f95597eedc4c651868601c0ff7c4a4d97ca4457.1558484115.git.matvore@google.com> <2b47d4b1-ea62-d59e-77e0-d95dfad084e0@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 10:59:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2b47d4b1-ea62-d59e-77e0-d95dfad084e0@jeffhostetler.com> (Jeff Hostetler's message of "Fri, 24 May 2019 17:01:15 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 589E7A46-8172-11E9-AD1D-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff Hostetler writes: > In the RFC version, there was discussion [2] of the wire format > and the need to be backwards compatible with existing servers and > so use the "combine:" syntax so that we only have a single filter > line on the wire. Would it be better to have compliant servers > advertise a "filters" (plural) capability in addition to the > existing "filter" (singular) capability? Then the client would > know that it could send a series of filter lines using the existing > syntax. Likewise, if the "filters" capability was omitted, the > client could error out without the extra round-trip. All good ideas.