On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:01:10PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> +void get_remote_capabilities(int in, char *src_buf, size_t src_len)
> +{
> + struct strbuf capabilities_string = STRBUF_INIT;
> + for (;;) {
> + int len;
> + char *line = packet_buffer;
> + const char *arg;
> +
> + len = packet_read(in, &src_buf, &src_len,
> + packet_buffer, sizeof(packet_buffer),
> + PACKET_READ_GENTLE_ON_EOF |
> + PACKET_READ_CHOMP_NEWLINE);
> + if (len < 0)
> + die_initial_contact(0);
> +
> + if (!len)
> + break;
> +
> + if (len > 4 && skip_prefix(line, "ERR ", &arg))
> + die("remote error: %s", arg);
> +
> + if (starts_with(line, "capability:")) {
> + strbuf_addstr(&capabilities_string, line +
> strlen("capability:"));
> + strbuf_addch(&capabilities_string, ' ');
> + }
> + }
I think this is the reverse case of next_capabilities in the upload-pack
side, so I'll make the reverse suggestion. :) Would it make things nicer
if both v1 and v2 parsed the capabilities into a string_list?
> + free(server_capabilities);
> + server_capabilities = xmalloc(capabilities_string.len + 1);
> + server_capabilities = strbuf_detach(&capabilities_string, NULL);
Is this xmalloc line left over? The strbuf_detach will write over it.
> + strbuf_release(&capabilities_string);
No need to release if we just detached.
> +int request_capabilities(int out)
> +{
> + fprintf(stderr, "request_capabilities\n");
Debug cruft, I presume.
> + // todo: send our capabilities
> + packet_write(out, "capability:foo");
No C99 comments. But I think this is just a placeholder. :)
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
