Re: [WIP RFC 1/5] Documentation: order protocol v2 sections

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 5, 2018, 04:10 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqin08d36k.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <061dacf51763bd2f72b95c382e08f44655e247a7.1543879256.git.jonathantanmy@google.com>

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

> The git command line expects Git servers to follow a specific order of

"Command line"? It sounds like you are talking about the order of command line arguments and options, but apparently that is not what you are doing. Is it "The git over-the-wire protocol"?

> +    output = acknowledgements flush-pkt |
> +	     [acknowledgments delim-pkt] [shallow-info delim-pkt]
> +	     [wanted-refs delim-pkt] packfile flush-pkt

So the output can be either

 - acks followed by flush (and nothing else) or

 - (possibly) acks, followed by (possibly) shallow, followed by
   (possibly) wanted-refs, followed by the pack stream and flush at
   the end.

Show 11 quoted lines

> @@ -335,9 +335,10 @@ header.
>  	       *PKT-LINE(%x01-03 *%x00-ff)
>  
>      acknowledgments section
> -	* If the client determines that it is finished with negotiations
> -	  by sending a "done" line, the acknowledgments sections MUST be
> -	  omitted from the server's response.
> +	* If the client determines that it is finished with negotiations by
> +	  sending a "done" line (thus requiring the server to send a packfile),
> +	  the acknowledgments sections MUST be omitted from the server's
> +	  response.

OK.

Show 9 quoted lines

>  	* Always begins with the section header "acknowledgments"
>  
> @@ -388,9 +389,6 @@ header.
>  	  which the client has not indicated was shallow as a part of
>  	  its request.
>  
> -	* This section is only included if a packfile section is also
> -	  included in the response.
> -

Earlier, we said that shallow-info is not given when packfile is not there. That is captured in the updated EBNF above. We don't have a corresponding removal of a bullet point for wanted-refs section below but probably that is because the original did not have corresponding bullet point to begin with.

>      wanted-refs section
>  	* This section is only included if the client has requested a
>  	  ref using a 'want-ref' line and if a packfile section is also