From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 19:19:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] http: add support for HTTP 429 rate limit retries
Message-ID: <xmqqsea7trv8.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260310191019.GA589481@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 04:34:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>> > "Vaidas Pilkauskas via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Changes since v4:
>> >>
>> >>  * fix only strbuf_attach() calls which don't need reallocation
>> >>  * remove patch, which enforces strbuf_attach() contract via BUG()
>> >> ...
>> >> Vaidas Pilkauskas (4):
>> >>   strbuf: pass correct alloc to strbuf_attach() in strbuf_reencode()
>> >>   strbuf_attach: fix call sites to pass correct alloc
>> >>   remote-curl: introduce show_http_message_fatal() helper
>> >
>> > These three patches looked quite reasonable to me.
>> >
>> >>   http: add support for HTTP 429 rate limit retries
>> >
>> > I'd feel comfortable to see somebody more familiar with the HTTP
>> > transport code base to take a look at this step before we declare
>> > victory.
>> 
>> Any volunteers?
>
> Sorry, I'm way underwater on things I could/should be reviewing, and
> this one was quite non-trivial. ;)
>
> I just left some comments. A lot of it was about how to more cleanly
> integrate with the http code (which I admit is a mess, especially with
> respect to which "layer" things should happen at). Some of that may be
> debatable, though I hope we can make things a bit cleaner.
>
> But I think there may be a logic error in how http_request_recoverable()
> loops, which certainly needs to be fixed.

Thanks.