Re: Protocol v2 in v2.27 (Re: Re* [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.27.0-rc1)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 21, 2020, 16:42 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd06xtf39.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a3bf366-d888-74d3-5f81-78dfeb5eb79c@gmail.com>

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

>> Git 2.26 used protocol v2 as its default protocol, but soon after
>> release, users noticed that the protocol v2 negotiation code was prone
>> to fail when fetching from some remotes that are far ahead of others
>> (such as linux-next.git versus Linus's linux.git).  That has been
>> fixed by 0b07eecf6ed (Merge branch 'jt/v2-fetch-nego-fix',
>> 2020-05-01),
>
> Should we really mention the merge here? Is it because the "fix" is
> spread across two commits? Why not say the tip of the topic?

Strictly speaking, the tip of the topic is sufficient. You can use a third-party script "git when-merged" to ask "which exact merge gave us this commit in the mainline?" when given only the tip of the topic, which is what I often end up doing.

Writing the merge result reduces the need for doing the same "reverse" look-up.

On the other hand, going the other way to find the then-current tip of the topic from the result of the merge is much easier; you can ask the merge result what its second parent is.

The rest of your review I can entirely agree with. Thanks, always, for a prompt and well written review.