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 9D5B01F4B4 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 04:17:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726134AbgIPERq (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:17:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59174 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726023AbgIPERp (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:17:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E046377DEB; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:17:42 -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=hMuoStxvaWBSOKLyqR40+yXQg44=; b=M+MQ88 IJ9a6zcQLVCWixdEHt0oE00EpCk2V3zkBKak39IOdGA2XjSvpB+tHZBoB4rD/jMj vXw1TyUqVQ7mn51WF9z7AtNjo1suQbEuKpN80VmcKhM5ITia+TgxBGoB5C+mJeBo eVBf/ZHGm1hw4Vaz8kwG0qN97MyxbhPfNEhIo= 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=U/qR+4vKip0KoQIMSFdR/hcV+AGsyhxo 6mvR14b72Crhg2GkckumPrXgCgcUewKf/LPBohZ5ctGJ0I55PW7suDTBmWKLfbrR vj4CfDl33dhfpBum5S/KvVU4AfR3r5hJ3nyZnjP5xtFonCr7zIloHGgBPwBOEhf4 WA5Vg3QqjWo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79EB77DEA; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:17:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (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 67E3C77DE9; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:17:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Alex Riesen , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Wong Subject: Re: [PATCH] Pass --ipv4 and --ipv6 options to sub-fetches when fetching multiple remotes and submodules References: <20200915115025.GA18984@pflmari> <20200915115407.GA31786@pflmari> <20200915130606.GB2839276@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200915130606.GB2839276@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:06:06 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 909A45F0-F7D3-11EA-8F58-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:54:07PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote: > >> The options indicate user intent for the whole fetch operation, and >> ignoring them in sub-fetches is quite unexpected when, for instance, >> it is intended to limit all of the communication to a specific transport >> protocol for some reason. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen >> --- > > Regardless of whether we move forward with the parse-options flag or > config discussed in the other thread, I think this is an obvious > improvement that we should take in the meantime. Yes. Others can wait. ipversion configuration variable is probably easier to sell; parse_options thing deserves a longer and deeper thought as it will affect the API future codebase would rely on. Thanks.