Re: [PATCH] RFC/Add documentation for version protocol 2

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 22, 2015, 23:30 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd22vd9me.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZN9nBrJ_7skrSQ4kor+p=DM8RnSC2bFZ6TX=SxdMdqcA@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

>>> +action           = "noop" / "ls-remote" / "fetch" / "push" / "fetch-shallow"
> ...
>> If we are going in this "in-protocol message switches the service"
>> route, we should also support "archive" as one of the actions, no?
>> Yes, I know you named the document "pack-protocol" and "archive"
>> does not give you packs, but "ls-remote" does not transfer pack data,
>> either.
>
> I'll add that. Also I need to incorporate shallow in one way or another.

This level of detail may not matter at this point yet, but it is unclear to me why you have "fetch-shallow" as a separate thing (while not having "push-shallow"). The current infrastructure does already allow fetching into shallow repositories witout needing a separate action that is different from "fetch" (aka "upload-pack"). I would not be surprised if it were "I can deepn you if you want" capability, but I do not understand why you are singling out "shallow" as something that needs such a special treatment.