From: Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:38:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] pack-protocol.txt: Mark all LFs in push-cert as required
Message-ID: <CAD0k6qRGQyFxZ8+yqkzYff_k4ZjWPaegQbBphwXyfBtUOCCw6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsi91197o.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> writes:
>
>> Another way of looking at the problem with my assumptions is, I was
>> assuming "pkt-line framing" was the same thing as "pkt-line header".
>> You seem to be saying the definition of "pkt-line framing" is "header,
>> and optional trailing newline".
>
> Yes.  I thought that was what "Server SHOULD terminate with LF;
> client MUST NOT require it" in the existing text meant.

Unfortunately, the existing text is littered with examples of
"PKT-LINE(foo SP bar LF)". If we assume "PKT-LINE(...)" means "apply
pkt-line framing to the [...]", then this strongly implies that
"pkt-line framing" does _not_ include the trailing LF. (Or the logical
but bizarre alternative reading that such an example might have _two_
trailing LFs :)

> Ah, that reminds me of one thing I already said elsewhere.  We need
> to correct the above with s/Server/Sender/; s/Client/Receiver/; I
> think.