On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:34:33 +0200
Lars Schneider wrote:
>
> > On 17 Aug 2017, at 23:01, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > Christian Couder writes:
> >
> >> ... but I think we should then emphasize more in our test
> >> scripts (maybe by giving a good example) and perhaps also in the doc
> >> th
> On 17 Aug 2017, at 23:01, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Christian Couder writes:
>
>> ... but I think we should then emphasize more in our test
>> scripts (maybe by giving a good example) and perhaps also in the doc
>> that the filters/sub-processes should really pay attention and not
>> output
Christian Couder writes:
> ... but I think we should then emphasize more in our test
> scripts (maybe by giving a good example) and perhaps also in the doc
> that the filters/sub-processes should really pay attention and not
> output any capability that are not supported by Git.
Oh, absolutely.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Christian Couder writes:
>
I am still wondering if protocol errors should be fatal,
>>>
>>> Yes, please.
>>
>> Unfortunately I think it would prevent new filters or new
>> sub-processes to work with older versions of Git.
>>
>> For exa
Christian Couder writes:
>>> I am still wondering if protocol errors should be fatal,
>>
>> Yes, please.
>
> Unfortunately I think it would prevent new filters or new
> sub-processes to work with older versions of Git.
>
> For example if filters are upgraded company wide to support the new
> "del
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> Christian Couder wrote:
>
>>> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
>>> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
>>> further error is shown. This is a problem because th
Jonathan Tan wrote:
> Christian Couder wrote:
>> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
>> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
>> further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
>> message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd failed
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Lars Schneider
wrote:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 21:29, Christian Couder
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be possible to use "process->argv[0]"?
>>> Shouldn't that be the same as "cmd"?
>>
>> Well in sub-
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 21:29, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
>>> is not supported, so the exit code of the
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Christian Couder
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder
>>> wrote:
>>> @@ -184,8 +185,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process
>>> *process,
>>>
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
wrote:
>
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder
>> wrote:
>>
>> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
>> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
>> further error is shown. This is a problem bec
Lars Schneider writes:
>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder
>> wrote:
>>
>> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
>> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
>> further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
>> message does
On 8/15/2017 1:36 PM, Christian Couder wrote:
In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd failed.
On the
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
> further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
> message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd f
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:36:11 +0200
Christian Couder wrote:
> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
> further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
> message doesn't tell us which subprocess c
In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd failed.
On the contrary if we cannot write a packet from this fun
16 matches
Mail list logo
