From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 21:27:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] protocol docs: explain receive-pack push options
Message-ID: <01f61fa4-d69d-8f0b-76e1-bca3444f4101@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170506002605.GM28740@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>

On 05/05/2017 05:26 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> -This list is followed by a flush-pkt. Then the push options are transmitted
>> -one per packet followed by another flush-pkt. After that the packfile that
>> -should contain all the objects that the server will need to complete the new
>> -references will be sent.
>> +This list is followed by a flush-pkt.
>
> I think this removed more than intended.
>
> Before c714e45f (receive-pack: implement advertising and receiving
> push options, 2016-07-14), this said
>
> 	This list is followed by a flush-pkt and then the packfile that should
> 	contain all the objects that the server will need to complete the new
> 	references.
>
> which I think would work fine.

That wouldn't work fine because there is no mention of push options - 
hence the modification in c714e45f to talk about push options, but that 
is also not accurate because push options (and, more importantly, the 
associated flush-pkt) are not sent if the client doesn't have any.

> [...]
>> -  update-request    =  *shallow ( command-list | push-cert ) [packfile]
>> +  update-request    =  *shallow ( command-list | push-cert )
>
> This seems confusing to me both before and after.  How does
> update-request get used?  Is it supposed to include the packfile or not?
>
> Where do push-options fit into an unsigned request?

I've updated "update-request" to "update-requests" to show that this is 
the "list of reference update requests" mentioned in the previous paragraph.

This is only the ref part - I've chosen to describe push options and 
packfile in separate sections, because there are very specific rules 
that determine whether the push option section must be included or omitted.

>
> [...]
>> @@ -500,12 +497,35 @@ references will be sent.
>>  		      PKT-LINE("pusher" SP ident LF)
>>  		      PKT-LINE("pushee" SP url LF)
>>  		      PKT-LINE("nonce" SP nonce LF)
>> +		      *PKT-LINE("push-option" SP push-option LF)
>>  		      PKT-LINE(LF)
>>  		      *PKT-LINE(command LF)
>>  		      *PKT-LINE(gpg-signature-lines LF)
>>  		      PKT-LINE("push-cert-end" LF)
>>
>> -  packfile          = "PACK" 28*(OCTET)
>> +  push-option       =  1*CHAR
>> +----
>> +
>> +If the server has advertised the 'push-options' capability and the client has
>> +specified 'push-options' as part of the capability list above, the client then
>> +sends its push options followed by a flush-pkt.
>> +
>> +----
>> +  push-options      =  *PKT-LINE(push-option) flush-pkt
>> +----
>> +
>> +For backwards compatibility with older Git servers, if the client sends a push
>> +cert and push options, it SHOULD send its push options both embedded within the
>
> This needs to be a MUST, not SHOULD.
>
>> +push cert and after the push cert. (Note that the push options within the cert
>> +are prefixed, but the push options after the cert are not.) Both these lists
>> +SHOULD be consistent.
>
> Likewise this one.
>
> What does it mean to be consistent?

Changed to "MUST be the same, modulo the prefix".