Re: [PATCH] config: option transfer.ipversion to set transport protocol version for network fetches

From: Alex Riesen <alexander.riesen@cetitec.com>
Date: Sep 21, 2020, 16:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20200921163901.GB4541@pflmari>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq363fnir9.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano, Fri, Sep 18, 2020 18:37:30 +0200:

Show 21 quoted lines

> Alex Riesen <alexander.riesen@cetitec.com> writes:
> 
> >     git fetch --ipversions=ipv6,ipv8
> >
> > Given multiple times, the last option wins, as usual:
> 
> Just a clarification on "the last option wins".
> 
> You do not mean "I said v6 earlier but no, I want v8", with the
> above.  What you mean is that
> 
> >
> >     $ cat my-fetch
> >     #!/bin/sh
> >     git fetch --ipversions=ipv4 "$@"
> >
> >     $ ./my-fetch --ipversions=all
> 
> the argument given to 'my-fetch' overrides what is hardcoded in
> 'my-fetch', i.e. "I said v4, but I take it back; I want to accept
> any".

Absolutely correct.

> I find the above sensible.

... And is precisely my intention.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > BTW, transport.c already converts transport->family to bit-flags in
> > connect_setup.
> 
> Yes, that is why I suggested the "list of acceptable choices"
> approach as a direction to go in the future, primarily to limit the
> scope of this current work.  I do not mind it if you want to bite
> the whole piece right now, though.

I shall try, I think.

> By the way, I have a mild preference to call the option after the
> phrase "protocol-family", without "IP", so that we won't be limited
> to Internet protocols.  IOW, --ipversions is a bad name for the new
> commnad line option in my mind.

I have nothing against protocol-family, with or without "transport-". I just didn't want to ... over-generalize it prematurely: currently, the transport family is very fixed on IP on many levels.

Show 8 quoted lines

> As I said elsewhere, I also think TRANSPORT_FAMILY_ALL is a
> misnomer.  When it is specified, we don't use all the available ones
> at the same time.  What it says is that we accept use of any
> protocol families that are supported.  It is OK to use ALL in the
> CPP macro as it is merely an internal implementation detail, but if
> we are going to expose it to end users as one of the choices, I'd
> prefer to use 'any', and not 'all', as the value for the new command
> line option.

Noted.

Regards, Alex