Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 05:02:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Actually, I take it back. I think it works for a single round of ref >> > negotiation, but not for multiple. Enabling GIT_TEST_LONG=1 causes it to >> > fail t5551. >> > >> > I think I've probably made a mis-assumption on exactly when in the HTTP >> > protocol we will see a flush packet (and perhaps that is a sign that >> > this protocol-snooping approach is not a good one). >> >> Hmph. I think I tried David's original under GIT_TEST_LONG and saw >> it got stuck; could be the same issue, I guess. > > It works OK here. I think it is just that the test is really slow (by > design).
Yeah, I think what I recalled was my old attempt to run the follow-up "any SHA-1" patch without this one.
