Re: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remote-curl.c: handle v1 when check_smart_http

["lilinchao@oschina.cn" <lilinchao@oschina.cn>]

--------------
lilinchao@oschina.cn
>Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> +	} else if (!strcmp(reader.line, "version 1")) {
>>> +	die(_("v1 is just the original protocol with a version string, use v0 or v2 instead."));
>>
>> The user may no longer get "invalid response; got 'version 1'", but
>> the above does not still explain why v1 is bad and v0 or v2 is
>> welcome, either.  IOW, I do not think the patch improves the message
>> to achieve what it attempted to do, i.e.
>>
>>     ... but the other side just treat it as "invalid response", this
>>     can't explain why is not ok.
>
>Alternatively
>
>	v1 is not supported; use v0 or v2
>
>would explain why the connection is refused.  It explains why it is
>not ok much clearly than "just the original with a version string".
>
>> I wonder if it is a sensible and better alternative to treat v1
>> response as if we got v0 (if v1 is truly the same as v0 except for
>> the initial version advertisement).
>>
>> Input from those who are familiar with the protocol versions is very
>> much appreciated.
>
>This still stands; we reject because we don't support, but is it
>easy to support it instead, if there is no difference? 

Yes, if there is no difference, just to support it too. So I don't know
why it is not support until now.

Thanks.