Re: [PATCH] RFC/Add documentation for version protocol 2

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Apr 23, 2015, 06:16 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZyTTX2d+ULohS+J0tA7AYHRZ8DKqfgmuQGFzZsbwkQzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd22vd9me.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>>>> +action           = "noop" / "ls-remote" / "fetch" / "push" / "fetch-shallow"
>> ...
>>> If we are going in this "in-protocol message switches the service"
>>> route, we should also support "archive" as one of the actions, no?
>>> Yes, I know you named the document "pack-protocol" and "archive"
>>> does not give you packs, but "ls-remote" does not transfer pack data,
>>> either.
>>
>> I'll add that. Also I need to incorporate shallow in one way or another.
>
> This level of detail may not matter at this point yet, but it is
> unclear to me why you have "fetch-shallow" as a separate thing
> (while not having "push-shallow").

Right, this should have been done via plain fetch action but the mode parameter may be set to shallow,narrow or what we want. Sorry for my shortcut in thinking there.

Show 7 quoted lines

> The current infrastructure does
> already allow fetching into shallow repositories without needing a
> separate action that is different from "fetch" (aka "upload-pack").
> I would not be surprised if it were "I can deepn you if you want"
> capability, but I do not understand why you are singling out
> "shallow" as something that needs such a special treatment.
>

I should not have done that. I just got confused.