On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Ugh, the jk/version-string topic breaks fetching from Google Code. With
my patch, the client unconditionally sends an agent=foo capability,
but the server does not like seeing the unknown
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:06:08AM -0700, Dave Borowitz wrote:
I asked the folks who run code.google.com and they are indeed seeing
something like these in their logs:
Client asked for capability agent=git/1.7.12.rc2.79.g86c1702 that was
not advertised.
FWIW, this error comes from
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0700, Dave Borowitz wrote:
Thanks for the data point. I knew you guys ran some custom code, so I
wasn't sure how widespread this is. The fact that other dulwich-based
servers would see the same issue makes me doubly sure that my fix is the
right
Dave Borowitz dborow...@google.com writes:
You may also notice in that code a set of innocuous_capabilities,
which IIRC is the complete set of capabilities, at the time of
writing, that the C git client may send without the server advertising
them. Such a set (painstakingly assembled, I
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:13:30AM -0700, Dave Borowitz wrote:
Thanks for the data point. I knew you guys ran some custom code, so I
wasn't sure how widespread this is. The fact that other dulwich-based
servers would see the same issue makes me doubly sure
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:25:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I don't think there's any bug here. They are all of a class of features
where the client can handle the case where the server simply ignores the
request. However it is certainly food for thought if we are considering
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:52:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
When evaluating a change in the interoperability area, it does not
add much more confidence to the correctness that the change has been
in use for months with the same partner than that it has been used
to talk to many different
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:52:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
When evaluating a change in the interoperability area, it does not
add much more confidence to the correctness that the change has been
in use for months with the
Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:52:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
When evaluating a change in the interoperability area, it does not
add much more confidence to the correctness that the
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 12:13:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmm. We have a check-docs command? :)
Yes, and there also is a check-builtins target. Perhaps the default
build target should depend on them, as they are fairly lightweight?
I think they would want some refactoring. Right now
301 - 310 of 310 matches
Mail list logo
