Re: [RFC 0/7] transitioning to protocol v2

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2017, 01:19 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7exsv3yu.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170824225328.8174-1-bmwill@google.com>

Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> The best way to preserve functionality with old servers and clients would be to
> communicate using the same end point but have the client send a bit of extra
> information with its initial request.  This extra information would need to be
> sent in such a way that old servers ignore it and operate normally (using
> protocol v1).  The client would then need to be able to look at a server's
> response to determine whether the server understands and is speaking v2 or has
> ignored the clients request to use a newer protocol and is speaking v1.

Good. I think the idle talk last round was for the server to tell the v1 client "we are still doing the slow ls-remote comes first protocol with this exchange, but just for future reference, you can use the v2 endpoint with me", which was way less desirable (even though it may be safer).

Show 5 quoted lines

> Patches 1-5 enable a client to unconditionally send this back-channel
> information to a server.  This is done by sending a version number after a
> second NUL byte in git://, in the envvar GIT_PROTOCOL in file:// and ssh://,
> and in an http header in http://, https://.  Patches 6-7 teach a client and
> upload-pack to send and recognize a request to use protocol v2.

All sounds sensible.

 - for git://, if you say you found a hole in the protocol to stuff
   this information, I simply believe you ;-)  Good job.

 - http:// and https:// should be a no-brainer as the HTTP headers
   give ample room to send information from the initiator side.

 - For ssh://, I do not think it is sane to assume that we can
   convince server operators to allow passing any random environment
   variable.  If the use of this specific variable turns out to be
   popular enough, however, and its benefit outweighs administrative
   burden, perhaps it is not impossible to convince them to allow
   AcceptEnv on this single variable.

Thanks.