Re: [PATCH 1/6] fetch-pack: refactor packet writing

>> Right, this commit in itself looks good. But I was curious why we need
>> this, so I did a sneak peak into the following commits.
>>
>> To summarize, we want to call:
>>    `write_command_and_capabilities(..., "object-info");`
>> in the upcoming patches to get the object-info details from the server.
>> But isn't this function too specific to the "fetch" command to be
>> generalized to be for "object-info" too?
>>
>> Wouldn't it make sense to add a custom function for 'object-info' in
>> 'connect.c'? Like how we currently have `get_remote_bundle_uri()` for
>> 'bundle-uri' and `get_remote_refs` for 'ls-refs'?
>
> Thank you. I am reading through the old comments left by Taylor
> at https://lore.kernel.org/git/YkOPyc9tUfe2Tozx@nand.local/
>
>   " Makes obvious sense, and this was something that jumped out to me when I
>   looked at the first and second versions of this patch. I'm glad that
>   this is getting factored out."
>
>
> It seems refactoring this into a more general function is on purpose.
> It is encouraged to use this general function to request capability
> rather than adding a custom function.
> Taylor’s comment was 2 years ago, but I think refactoring this into a
> more general function to
> enforce DRY still makes sense.