From: Petr Baudis Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:04:29 GMT Subject: Re: Revamping the git protocol Message-ID: <20051021010429.GC30889@pasky.or.cz> In-Reply-To: <4357BCBC.1020706@zytor.com> Dear diary, on Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:50:20PM CEST, I got a letter where "H. Peter Anvin" told me that... > Another issue is that currently there is no error information propagated > back to the client; the server logs an error in its own logs, but the > client is simply disconnected. Yes. I agree that while it seems quite complex compared to what we have now, your proposal has good points. But if we are going with the challenge-response at all and if we are going with the simple form, I was merely trying to make sure that it is as compatible as possible. > Anyone noticed that either of those schemes aren't actually > backward-compatible in any way (old client talking to new server will be > disconnected), and that unfortunately is the best thing one can do with > the current setup, exactly because there is no option negotiation phase? Yes, option negotiation would solve this for us. But my scheme _is_ backwards-compatible in the way that new client taking to old server will not be disconnected, so it's 50% better than the original proposal. But I think that considering the long run, we should either not do this challenge-response thing at all, and fix the problem by other (Linus') means, or go for the "complex" scheme. I'd prefer the latter - sending the error messages to the client alone is a huge improvement. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't.