After looking at $gmane/264000 again, maybe the client should talk first
stating all the relevant information it wants to get, though I realize this
is not part of capabilities so maybe it could even before, such as:
Client: All I want to do is an ls-remote, so only Phase 2, no
transmission of blo
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
>> The current protocol has the following problems that limit
>> us:
>>
>> - It is not easy to make it resumable, because we
>> recompute every time. This is especially problematic for
>> the initial fetch aka "clone" as we will be talking about
Martin Fick writes:
>> The current protocol has the following problems that limit
>> us:
>>
>> - It is not easy to make it resumable, because we
>> recompute every time. This is especially problematic for
>> the initial fetch aka "clone" as we will be talking about
>> a large transfer. Redirec
> The current protocol has the following problems that limit
> us:
>
> - It is not easy to make it resumable, because we
> recompute every time. This is especially problematic for
> the initial fetch aka "clone" as we will be talking about
> a large transfer. Redirection to a bundle hosted on CD
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> This is a follow-up on $gmane/264553, which is a continuation of
>> $gmane/264000, but instead of giving two required readings to
>> readers, I'll start with reproduction of the two, and add a few more
>> things the cu
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> This is a follow-up on $gmane/264553, which is a continuation of
> $gmane/264000, but instead of giving two required readings to
> readers, I'll start with reproduction of the two, and add a few more
> things the current protocol lacks that I
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I have a feeling that it is a bit too premature to specify the
> details at such a low level as "capaiblities are announced by
> prefixing four-byte 'c', 'a', 'p', ':' in front" and "a multi-record
> group has its element count at the beginning (or an end marker at
> the
On Mar 9, 2015, at 18:38, Duy Nguyen wrote:
A minor point on capability negotiation. I remember why I passed
capabilities via command line instead of this proposal. With this
proposal, daemon.c does not recognize "i18n" capability and cannot
switch to the correct language before it reports an err
A minor point on capability negotiation. I remember why I passed
capabilities via command line instead of this proposal. With this
proposal, daemon.c does not recognize "i18n" capability and cannot
switch to the correct language before it reports an error.
But perhaps I approached it the wrong way
Stefan Beller writes:
>> I do not see a good reason why we want "I am sending N caps"
>> upfront, instead of "this, that, and here is the end of the group".
>
> I thought about having an end marker, so something like
> capabilities start
> thin-pack
> lang
> ofs-delta
> capabilities done
>
> (Eac
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>> +
>>> + advertised-refs = (no-refs / list-of-refs)
>>> + *shallow
>>> + flush-pkt
>>
>> I am not sure if defining "shallow" as part of "refs advertisement"
>> is a good idea. The latter lives in t
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> @@ -67,7 +74,6 @@ gracefully with an error message.
>>error-line = PKT-LINE("ERR" SP explanation-text)
>>
>>
>> -
>> SSH Transport
>
> Noise?
>
>> @@ -124,9 +130,56 @@ has, the first can 'fetch' fro
Stefan Beller writes:
> @@ -67,7 +74,6 @@ gracefully with an error message.
>error-line = PKT-LINE("ERR" SP explanation-text)
>
>
> -
> SSH Transport
Noise?
> @@ -124,9 +130,56 @@ has, the first can 'fetch' from the second. This
> operation determines
> what data the server
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> +Reference Discovery (v2)
> +
> +
> +In version 2, reference discovery is initiated by the client with
> +"want-refs" line. The client may skip reference discovery phase
> +entirely by not sending "want-refs" (e.g. the
I'm still wondering if we should reserve more from the packet length.
We have used length for pkt-flush. Shawn pointed out that we
still have 0001, 0002 and 0003 but we may use some of them to avoid
abuse of pkt-flush in some cases. Perhaps we could limit packet length
to 0xfff0, so we have 0x
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> From: Duy Nguyen
Oops. I edited the proposal from Duy heavily(?), such that it is
different from what he proposed 4 days ago.
In my impression this is what most of the participants would agree on.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
From: Duy Nguyen
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller
---
Notes:
This is just aimed at untangling capabilities and refs
advertisement, no new features.
Hence this is missing the proposal from Duy to save one RTT.
I have the impression that most of you are dreaming about new
fea
17 matches
Mail list logo
