On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On 08/30, Bryan Turner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
>> >
>> >> The biggest question I'm trying to answer is if these are reasonable way
On 08/30, Bryan Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
> >
> >> The biggest question I'm trying to answer is if these are reasonable ways
> >> with
> >> which to communicate a request to a server to
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
>> The biggest question I'm trying to answer is if these are reasonable ways
>> with
>> which to communicate a request to a server to use a newer protocol, without
>> breaking
On 08/30, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>
>
> On 8/29/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:08:25PM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> >
> >>I just wanted to jump in here and say I've done some initial
> >>testing of this against VSTS and so far it seems fine. And yes,
> >>we have a
On 8/29/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:08:25PM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
I just wanted to jump in here and say I've done some initial
testing of this against VSTS and so far it seems fine. And yes,
we have a custom git server.
Great, thank you for checking.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:08:25PM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> I just wanted to jump in here and say I've done some initial
> testing of this against VSTS and so far it seems fine. And yes,
> we have a custom git server.
Great, thank you for checking.
> VSTS doesn't support the "git://" prot
On 08/29, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>
>
> On 8/25/2017 1:35 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Jeff King wrote:
> >>On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
> >
> >>>Another version of Git's wire protocol is a topic that has been discussed
> >>>and
> >>>attempted by ma
On 8/25/2017 1:35 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
Another version of Git's wire protocol is a topic that has been discussed and
attempted by many in the community over the years. The biggest challenge, as
fa
On 08/25, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:35:50AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> > > Sadly, while splitting these things apart makes the protocol
> > > conceptually cleaner, I'm not sure if we can consider them separately
> > > and avoid adding an extra round-trip to the protocol.
Jeff King writes:
> But what if we instead think of it not as "protocol v2" but as "can I
> give the server some hints that it may end up ignoring", then we end up
> with something more like:
>
> C: please run upload-pack (btw, I'm only interested in refs/heads/foo)
> S: advertisement + caps
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:35:50AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Sadly, while splitting these things apart makes the protocol
> > conceptually cleaner, I'm not sure if we can consider them separately
> > and avoid adding an extra round-trip to the protocol.
>
> How about the idea of using thi
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:14:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
> > For now I would suggest we put a protocol v2 in place that is
> > the current protocol + a version number coming through the
> > poked hole at the beginning; the goal and review of this series
> > ought
Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
>> Another version of Git's wire protocol is a topic that has been discussed and
>> attempted by many in the community over the years. The biggest challenge, as
>> far as I understand, has been coming up wit
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:53:21PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote:
> Another version of Git's wire protocol is a topic that has been discussed and
> attempted by many in the community over the years. The biggest challenge, as
> far as I understand, has been coming up with a transition plan to usin
Stefan Beller writes:
> For now I would suggest we put a protocol v2 in place that is
> the current protocol + a version number coming through the
> poked hole at the beginning; the goal and review of this series
> ought to focus on getting the version handshake right...
Oh, we are in absolute a
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams writes:
>
>> The best way to preserve functionality with old servers and clients would be
>> to
>> communicate using the same end point but have the client send a bit of extra
>> information with its initial request. This
Brandon Williams writes:
> The best way to preserve functionality with old servers and clients would be
> to
> communicate using the same end point but have the client send a bit of extra
> information with its initial request. This extra information would need to be
> sent in such a way that o
Another version of Git's wire protocol is a topic that has been discussed and
attempted by many in the community over the years. The biggest challenge, as
far as I understand, has been coming up with a transition plan to using the new
server without breaking existing clients and servers. As such
18 matches
Mail list logo
