Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > Here is the reject case (non-streaming): > > git> smudge > git> > git> > git> ...pkt-lines... > git> pktline-flush > > git< 0 > git< reject > > > Do you see a problem with this approach? Only that it seemed a little weird to

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 18:50, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:20:51PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > That being said a "fail" response is a very good idea! This allows the filter to communicate to git that a non required filter process failed. I will

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:20:51PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> That being said a "fail" response is a very good idea! This allows > >> the filter to communicate to git that a non required filter process > >> failed. I will add that to the protocol. Thanks :) > > > > Maybe just send "ok ",

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 17:57, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:14:17AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> My current implementation supports only two cases. Either the filter >> knows the size and sends it back. Or the filter doesn't know the size >> and Git reads

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:14:17AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > My current implementation supports only two cases. Either the filter > knows the size and sends it back. Or the filter doesn't know the size > and Git reads until the flush packet (your "unknown" case). "Approx" is > probably hard

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 09:40, Jakub Narębski wrote: > > W dniu 2016-07-28 o 15:29, Jeff King pisze: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: >> >>> But Peff ($gmane/299902), Duy, and Eric, seemed to prefer the pkt-line >>> solution (gmane is down -

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

W dniu 2016-07-28 o 15:29, Jeff King pisze: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> But Peff ($gmane/299902), Duy, and Eric, seemed to prefer the pkt-line >> solution (gmane is down - otherwise I would have given you the links). > > FWIW, I think there are

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > But Peff ($gmane/299902), Duy, and Eric, seemed to prefer the pkt-line > solution (gmane is down - otherwise I would have given you the links). FWIW, I think there are arguments for transmitting size + content (namely, that it is

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

W dniu 2016-07-28 o 09:16, Lars Schneider pisze: >> On 27 Jul 2016, at 21:08, Jakub Narębski wrote: >> W dniu 2016-07-27 o 02:06, larsxschnei...@gmail.com pisze: >>> >>> thanks a lot for the extensive reviews. I tried to address all mentioned >>> concerns and summarized them

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

> On 27 Jul 2016, at 21:08, Jakub Narębski wrote: > > W dniu 2016-07-27 o 02:06, larsxschnei...@gmail.com pisze: >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks a lot for the extensive reviews. I tried to address all mentioned >> concerns and

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol

W dniu 2016-07-27 o 02:06, larsxschnei...@gmail.com pisze: > From: Lars Schneider > > Hi, > > thanks a lot for the extensive reviews. I tried to address all mentioned > concerns and summarized them below. The most prominent changes since v1 are > the following: > * Git