Re: Problem accessing git.kernel.org with git v2.33 plus gitproxy

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:42:15AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:37:50PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > I am sympathetic that this used to work, and now doesn't. But this proxy
> > > case is affected by the problem that ae1a7eefff was solving. The root of
> > > the issue is just that "socat" in its default form is not doing the
> > > right thing. So I'd prefer not to try to make any change to Git's
> > > behavior here.
> > 
> > As a kernel developer I learned hard way that breaking user experience by
> > kernel changes considered a kernel regression, even if userspace "does it
> > wrong"™. I'm not sure what standard of care for Git users is.
> > 
> > I'm fine adjusting the proxy script and make my colleagues aware about the
> > issue, but the approach doesn't scale.
> 
> I think we're a little less extreme there than the kernel. Like I said,
> my preference is to leave Git as-is, but if somebody feels strongly, I
> don't think it would be that hard to leave core.gitproxy untouched here.

> I agree it doesn't scale, but my suspicion is that we're talking about
> an extremely small population here. IMHO we should be considering
> deprecating git:// entirely (from Git itself, and kernel.org should
> consider turning it off). In the v2 protocol, there's no advantage to
> using it over HTTP.

> > > But one option would be to limit it only to ssh, and not
> > > git:// proxies (we already don't do that half-duplex shutdown for raw
> > > TCP git://, for reasons discussed in that commit message).
> > 
> > I wounder if it's possible to detect the situation, warn the user that
> > gitproxy has to be fixed and retry fetching pack without closing fd[1].
> 
> I don't think it can be easily distinguished from an actual network
> hangup (or proxy command failure, etc). I would much rather stop doing
> the close() entirely than add any kind of heuristic retry.