Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Lars Schneider writes: >> Unless the reasoning is "an error in between is so rare that we are >> OK if the protocol misbehaves and the receiving end omits error >> handing", I am not so sure how "therefore additional work is OK" is >> a reasonable conclusion. > > Maybe

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 19:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Lars Schneider writes: > >>> If we do the success first and then error out halfway, we >>> still have to clean up, so I do not see how this impacts >>> implementation? >> >> That is true. The

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 19:07, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Lars Schneider > wrote: >> >> The welcome message is necessary to distinguish the long running >> filter protocol (v2) from the current one-shot filter protocol

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Lars Schneider writes: >> If we do the success first and then error out halfway, we >> still have to clean up, so I do not see how this impacts >> implementation? > > That is true. The reasoning is that an error in between is somewhat > less expected. Therefore

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 18:48, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: >> If the result content is empty then the filter is expected to respond with a

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Stefan Beller
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: > > The welcome message is necessary to distinguish the long running > filter protocol (v2) from the current one-shot filter protocol (v1). > This is becomes important if a users tries to use a v1 clean/smudge >

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Lars Schneider
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 18:33, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:04 AM, wrote: >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> Git's clean/smudge mechanism invokes an external filter process for every >> single blob that is

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Stefan Beller
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> > If the result content is empty then the filter is expected to respond >> > with a success status and an empty list. >> > >> > packet:

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Jeff King
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:33:18AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > If the result content is empty then the filter is expected to respond > > with a success status and an empty list. > > > > packet: git< status=success\n > > packet: git< > > packet:

Re: [PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-12 Thread Stefan Beller
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:04 AM, wrote: > From: Lars Schneider > > Git's clean/smudge mechanism invokes an external filter process for every > single blob that is affected by a filter. If Git filters a lot of blobs > then the startup time of

[PATCH v5 14/15] convert: add filter..process option

2016-08-10 Thread larsxschneider
From: Lars Schneider Git's clean/smudge mechanism invokes an external filter process for every single blob that is affected by a filter. If Git filters a lot of blobs then the startup time of the external filter processes can become a significant part of the overall Git