From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C684AC433F5 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 23:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242169AbiECXPR (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2022 19:15:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58060 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237266AbiECXPQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2022 19:15:16 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb49.google.com (mail-yb1-xb49.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b49]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D5F7326E2 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb49.google.com with SMTP id d22-20020a25add6000000b00645d796034fso16815557ybe.2 for ; Tue, 03 May 2022 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:subject:from:to:cc; bh=kBeayws+jLeG3DKCErWCnmC69SwmsH7YKWTFGxPERw0=; b=WOovkhcJdgbZQXhve25X9stsURb+alJDr4LbpUi3tfN40xiEuRca4JE2n23Y5JJlwX 7NUvQvwLBI6A3Hg0iDTXhJFCOrhuf3lU7vl+Jb4nrQ4djlPfaol4U62I8C2+rv4ZBna7 gwWcruaY2TODvP0aY/B3lmRXvvQnDthucg9nnXFrcHlMMPcEMScuG4uAIYGXztaZ7i6i B5kYXL0T6UWaNOEFAYxGhq1Hveso+n6lqv9vFLw76YWvRYOvc/nzmGMtKZL+dpJaxCi+ wXYu5EHaemL7X7Od6c9D9qQum/9PLSs5/YtHSZzZT3Lj0/PCwqJlgwBgYZTk3tc6ntHB B8Nw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:subject :from:to:cc; bh=kBeayws+jLeG3DKCErWCnmC69SwmsH7YKWTFGxPERw0=; b=8PKmIZfKIZFfRGMKwTHPaoTujPKk1mrPBs93XHvzQf8o1jL6QRHQBM4l5iFqcIKMp/ XABpXJtsVB/bWw8+mH+ZgkYiHHlXFUnJWgyHvrz2DLwan6jHqygI8yPB+5sZaVnM8H05 /E4gmJoRUbIoiJ6spiYwxIYU7NifeQm7fHx5fty8lLqAmxPU6FdtLWYSGqqhNDBMhy1e AOSJbLBCrWrDEriuv6kazpTTSfxtPXax+48gvkyNQwWwQf+xHokPUJuR4pnA2JxWgL/c ONzUDJM1LiOejAEomKMULCdoHCeKL8DXApScI2tzjom+rmbhYCK31RPJicne0KMb1BCL Pcfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NgASrv0TZV3bNTJqBcGCkGx8zkdoUsrkQknyRvM3SzWQdYEIs NHXz7QHcC8+rSpTu8IpC1XYOiab9FF9tmR4MDkTl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/XbJmc5u0+MaMpCVQDFC+TRmeVkiYvEbsuOsFY6qgbnbdOSU8UnCYfdmpvrQBHpibAcssbPvi2DSjGU760ymV X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:437a]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a25:215:0:b0:64a:c05:7082 with SMTP id 21-20020a250215000000b0064a0c057082mr691556ybc.188.1651619501601; Tue, 03 May 2022 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 16:11:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20220502170904.2770649-5-calvinwan@google.com> Message-Id: <20220503231139.4171524-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.36.0.464.gb9c8b46e94-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] object-info: send attribute packet regardless of object ids From: Jonathan Tan To: Calvin Wan Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, philipoakley@iee.email, johncai86@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Calvin Wan writes: > Currently on the server side of object-info, if the client does not send > any object ids in the request or if the client requests an attribute the > server does not support, the server will either not send any packets > back or error out. Consider the scenario where the client git version is > ahead of the server git version, and the client can request additional > object-info besides 'size'. There needs to be a way to tell whether the > server can honor all of the client attribute requests before the client > sends a request with all of the object ids. This part explains the problem... > In a future patch, if the > client were to make an initial command request with only attributes, the > server would be able to confirm which attributes it could return. ...and this part explains what we want to do in the future, but this commit message doesn't explain what this commit does. (The commit subject has something related, but does not have enough detail. For example, is it an empty attribute packet?) Having said that, the way we usually communicate client-server version differences is through capabilities - is there a reason why we can't use that here?