On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:31:50PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > You can dig up the discussion on the list under the name "protocol v2",
> > > but basically yes, that approach has been considered. It's a little
> > > gross just because it leaves other protocols behind http (and it is not
> > > necessarily a good idea to push people into http, because it has some
> > > fundamental drawbacks over the other protocols because of its
> > > half-duplex nature).
> > I looked through the "protocol v2" threads, but couldn't find any
> > discussions of using HTTP headers. I found some mentions of using
> > additional query parameters on the git-upload-pack request, which would
> > break compatibility with existing servers (they won't just ignore the
> > extra parameter).
> Probably the most interesting recent discussion is the sub-thread of
> this patch:
> which you might have missed because it only messages "v2 protocol" in
> the body.
Thanks for the link.
> But basically, I think you get the gist of it. We need to pass
> information from the client to the server _before_ the initial
> capability advertisement. For HTTP, we can do it via specialized headers
> or query parameters. For other protocols, we're stuck with some kind of
> try-and-fallback hack.
> That means those protocols may diverge slightly from HTTP, but at least
> they would differ only in the "bootstrap v2" bit (and that would
> eventually become irrelevant as everybody moves to v2).
> > --client-caps could work for SSH as well, it just requires an extra
> > round-trip to check for --client-caps. Call git-upload-pack
> > --supports-client-caps, ignore any output (which with current git will
> > consist of a usage message), see if it returns a 0 exit code, if so,
> > call git-upload-pack --client-caps='...', and if not just call
> > git-upload-pack. (A new git-upload-pack-2 binary would also work, but
> > that seems like overkill.) I don't see any way around the extra round
> > trip here that would preserve backward compatibility with existing SSH
> > servers (which may force clients to *only* run exactly the command
> > "git-upload-pack" and nothing else).
> Yep, that's about it. For ssh, I suspect we could optimistically try:
> git upload-pack --v2; test $? = 129 && git-upload-pack
> and then fallback to just "git-upload-pack". That would work without an
> extra round-trip on real shell-capable servers, and eventually work on
> restricted ones.
True, that seems completely sensible.
> That doesn't help git://, though.
I'd love to see plaintext git:// disappear through lack of use.
> There are proposals floating around for basically easing into it with
> config. Have a "remote.*.v2" option you can set locally to enable (or
> disable) it. Default to "false". When there are enough v2 servers around
> to make it worthwhile, flip the default to "auto" which will do the
> probing (at some minor expense of handling fallbacks). Optionally we
> could record the last response for "auto" and use that going forward.
That sounds sensible.
> > Another possibility, which would work for both HTTPS and
> > git-protocol-over-TLS, would be to use ALPN.
> Do people actually use git-over-TLS? There's no core support AFAIK, so
> you'd have to hack it up with a client proxy and git-remote-ext.
I've seen the idea bounced around and prototyped in the context of
supporting authenticated push to git://
> For HTTPS, I'd just as soon use HTTP-level features.
ALPN, used carefully, could potentially allow eliminating one round-trip
compared to HTTPS, and could also allow full-duplex communication.
- Josh Triplett
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html