Re: http-fetch troubles

From: Becky Bruce <becky.bruce@freescale.com>
Date: Jun 3, 2006, 01:13 UTC
Message-ID: <1C422237-D48C-4A30-9BDD-5C165222873D@freescale.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vac8vbgqg.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Woohoo! The stuff you moved to master (which is what I was building from, not "next", as Nick pointed out) has fixed the git-http-fetch segfault problem I was seeing.

Thanks! -Becky

On Jun 2, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
>
>> Nick Hengeveld <nickh@reactrix.com> writes:
>>
>>> - "git push" seems to pass --thin by default to http-push, which
>>>   subsequently barfs because that's not a valid http-push option.
>>>   Should it be?  Should it be silently ignored?  Should git-push not
>>>   default to --thin when pushing with HTTP transport?
>>
>> The way I understand http-push works is that it does not use
>> packed transfer, so I presume even if we give --thin as a hint
>> it cannot even take advantage of it.  Probably we should stop
>> passing --thin to http transport (git native one uses it as a
>> cue that it can generate baseless deltas in the resulting pack).
>>
>>> - when I clone, http-fetch outputs a whole bunch of
>>>   "error: Could not read ..." messages - is that expected?
>>
>> The clone over http seems to be severely broken in "next" right
>> now.  The one in "master" seems to be OK.  bisecting suggests
>> the breakage is coming from the tree parser rewrite.
>>
>> bisect points at 136f2e548a34f1f504b0f062f87ddf33e8d6e83b.
>
> I've pushed out Nick's http-fetch fixes in "master" to see if it
> fixes problems for people.  Right now the one in "next" branch
> seems to be having unrelated problems coming from another topic
> which I haven't started tracking down yet.
>
>