From: lilinchao@oschina.cn Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:22:45 GMT Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remote-curl.c: handle v1 when check_smart_http Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <388751448ce011ebaaead4ae5278bc1265898@pobox.com> -------------- lilinchao@oschina.cn >Junio C Hamano writes: > >>> + } else if (!strcmp(reader.line, "version 1")) { >>> + die(_("v1 is just the original protocol with a version string, use v0 or v2 instead.")); >> >> The user may no longer get "invalid response; got 'version 1'", but >> the above does not still explain why v1 is bad and v0 or v2 is >> welcome, either.  IOW, I do not think the patch improves the message >> to achieve what it attempted to do, i.e. >> >>     ... but the other side just treat it as "invalid response", this >>     can't explain why is not ok. > >Alternatively > > v1 is not supported; use v0 or v2 > >would explain why the connection is refused.  It explains why it is >not ok much clearly than "just the original with a version string". > >> I wonder if it is a sensible and better alternative to treat v1 >> response as if we got v0 (if v1 is truly the same as v0 except for >> the initial version advertisement). >> >> Input from those who are familiar with the protocol versions is very >> much appreciated. > >This still stands; we reject because we don't support, but is it >easy to support it instead, if there is no difference? Yes, if there is no difference, just to support it too. So I don't know why it is not support until now. Thanks.