On 12/07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams writes:
>
> > While we could wrap the preamble into a function it sort of defeats the
> > purpose since you want to be able to call different functions based on
> > the protocol version you're speaking. That way you can have hard
> > separations
Brandon Williams writes:
> While we could wrap the preamble into a function it sort of defeats the
> purpose since you want to be able to call different functions based on
> the protocol version you're speaking. That way you can have hard
> separations between the code paths which operate on v0/
On 12/07, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams writes:
>
> > @@ -193,7 +195,17 @@ int cmd_fetch_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const
> > char *prefix)
> > if (!conn)
> > return args.diag_url ? 0 : 1;
> > }
> > - get_remote_heads(fd[0], NULL, 0, &ref,
Brandon Williams writes:
> @@ -193,7 +195,17 @@ int cmd_fetch_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
> if (!conn)
> return args.diag_url ? 0 : 1;
> }
> - get_remote_heads(fd[0], NULL, 0, &ref, 0, NULL, &shallow);
> +
> + packet_r
In order to prepare for the addition of protocol_v2 push the protocol
version discovery outside of 'get_remote_heads()'. This will allow for
keeping the logic for processing the reference advertisement for
protocol_v1 and protocol_v0 separate from the logic for protocol_v2.
Signed-off-by: Brandon
5 matches
Mail list logo