From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:06:08 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] pack-protocol.txt: Mark all LFs in push-cert as required Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Dave Borowitz writes: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Dave Borowitz writes: >> >>> Another way of looking at the problem with my assumptions is, I was >>> assuming "pkt-line framing" was the same thing as "pkt-line header". >>> You seem to be saying the definition of "pkt-line framing" is "header, >>> and optional trailing newline". >> >> Yes. I thought that was what "Server SHOULD terminate with LF; >> client MUST NOT require it" in the existing text meant. > > Unfortunately, the existing text is littered with examples of > "PKT-LINE(foo SP bar LF)". If we assume "PKT-LINE(...)" means "apply > pkt-line framing to the [...]", then this strongly implies that > "pkt-line framing" does _not_ include the trailing LF. (Or the logical > but bizarre alternative reading that such an example might have _two_ > trailing LFs :) Yes, But I never viewed PKT-LINE() as an element that strictly defines the grammar of the packet protocol ;-) By clarifying that "sender SHOULD terminate with LF, receiver MUST NOT require it" is the rule (and fixing the existing implementations at places where they violate the "MUST NOT" part, which I think are very small number of places), I think we can drop these LF (or LF? for that matter) from all of the PKT-LINE() in the construction in the pack-protocol.txt, which would be a very good thing to do. The example in your sentence will become PKT-LINE(foo SP bar) and the "there may be an LF at the end" would only be at one place, as a part of the definition of PKT-LINE().