Re: [PATCH 0/4] some v2 capability advertisement cleanups

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Mar 4, 2024, 07:44 UTC
Message-ID: <ZeV7-NkUwT53IvIa@tanuki>
In-Reply-To: <20240228224625.GA1158651@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:46:25PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> While working on another series, I noticed that upload-pack will accept
> the "packfile-uris" directive even if we didn't advertise it. That's not
> a huge deal in practice, but the spec says we're not supposed to. And
> while cleaning that up, I noticed a bit of duplication in the existing
> advertisement/allow code.
> 
> So patches 1-3 clean up the situation a bit, and then patch 4 tightens
> up the packfile-uris handling.

This patch series was really easy to follow and feels like the right thing to do. I've got a couple of nits, but none of them are important enough to warrant a reroll.

Thanks!

Patrick

Show 17 quoted lines

> There are some small textual conflicts with the series I just posted in:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240228223700.GA1157826@coredump.intra.peff.net/
> 
> I'm happy to prepare this on top of that if it's easier.
> 
>   [1/4]: upload-pack: use repository struct to get config
>   [2/4]: upload-pack: centralize setup of sideband-all config
>   [3/4]: upload-pack: use existing config mechanism for advertisement
>   [4/4]: upload-pack: only accept packfile-uris if we advertised it
> 
>  t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh | 18 +++++++++++++
>  upload-pack.c          | 58 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> -Peff
>