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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B984C433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 21:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F02F23AFE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 21:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728905AbgLHVQf (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:16:35 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:56942 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728831AbgLHVQf (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:16:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 15129 invoked by uid 109); 8 Dec 2020 21:15:55 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:15:55 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 5212 invoked by uid 111); 8 Dec 2020 21:15:54 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:15:54 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:15:54 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Cloning empty repository uses locally configured default branch name Message-ID: References: <20201208200649.998740-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201208200649.998740-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:06:49PM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > I would worry how clients handle this bogus entry in the ref > > advertisement. It looks like the actual Git client is OK, but what about > > jgit, libgit2, etc? That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it would > > be nice to know how they react. > > That bogus entry is defined in the protocol and JGit both produces and > consumes that line. Consumption was verified by patching Git with my > patch and running the following commands in separate terminals: Ah, indeed. I forgot that we went through all of this a few years ago for your eb398797cd (connect: advertized capability is not a ref, 2016-09-09). I stand behind the "it was probably originally an error in the protocol documentation" from [1], but at this point I think we can say it's a supported part of the protocol. All of this is moot, of course, if we only do the v2 solution. :) -Peff [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20160902233547.mzgluioc7hhabalw@sigill.intra.peff.net/