Jeff King <> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:53:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jeff King <> writes:
>> > I added the config item as You could also allow
>> > "http.$" (and just "", for that matter), which could
>> > be more flexible if you have multiple remotes pointing to the same
>> > broken server.
>> What would the user experience be when we introduce "even smarter"
>> http server protocol extension?  Will we add
> I would hope that it would actually be negotiated reliably at the
> protocol level so we do not have to deal with this mess again.

The original dumb vs smart was supposed to be "negotiated reliably
at the protocol level", no?  Yet we need this band-aid, so...

>> Perhaps
>>     remote.$name.httpvariants = [smart] [dumb]
>> to allow users to say "smart only", "dumb only", or "smart and/or
>> dumb" might be more code but less burden on the users.
> I don't mind that format if we are going that direction, but is there
> anybody who actually wants to say "smart only?"

With 703e6e7 reverted, we take a failure from the initial smart
request to mean the server is simply not serving, so "smart only" to
fail quickly without trying dumb fallback is not needed.  "smart
only" to say "I wouldn't want to talk to dumb-only server---I do not
have infinite amount of time, and I'd rather try another server" is
still a possibility, but likely not worth supporting.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to