Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 06:21:18PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> Happy answer with no content: > >> > >> packet: git< status=success\n > >> > > > > This can just be spelled: > > > > git< status=success > > git< > > git<

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 08 Aug 2016, at 17:02, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 08:19:28PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >>> I dunno. It's not _that_ big a deal to code around. I was just surprised >>> not to see an up-front status when responding to a request. It seems >>> like the

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 08:19:28PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > > I dunno. It's not _that_ big a deal to code around. I was just surprised > > not to see an up-front status when responding to a request. It seems > > like the normal thing in just about every protocol I've ever used. > >

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On 2016-08-06 00.06, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > >> On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero >>> or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a >>>

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 06 Aug 2016, at 00:27, Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:06:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Torsten Bögershausen writes: >> >>> On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: The filter is expected to respond with the result

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 06 Aug 2016, at 14:14, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >>> And I expect it makes the lives of the client >>> easier to get a code up front, before it starts taking steps to handle >>> what it _thinks_ is probably a

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > > And I expect it makes the lives of the client > > easier to get a code up front, before it starts taking steps to handle > > what it _thinks_ is probably a valid response. > > I am not sure I can follow you here. Which actor are

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 03:06:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > > > On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero > >> or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: >> The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero >> or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a >> "result=success" packet is expected if everything went

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 05 Aug 2016, at 23:34, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > > On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: >> The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero >> or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a >> "result=success" packet

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On 2016-08-03 18.42, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > The filter is expected to respond with the result content in zero > or more pkt-line packets and a flush packet at the end. Finally, a > "result=success" packet is expected if everything went well. > > packet:

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 04 Aug 2016, at 00:46, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:48:00PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> OK. Is this the v2 discussion you are referring to? >> http://public-inbox.org/git/1461972887-22100-1-git-send-email-sbeller%40google.com/ >> >> What format do

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:48:00PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > OK. Is this the v2 discussion you are referring to? > http://public-inbox.org/git/1461972887-22100-1-git-send-email-sbeller%40google.com/ > > What format do you suggest? > > packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n > packet:

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 03 Aug 2016, at 23:43, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Lars Schneider > wrote: >>> >>> I think this was already pointed out in the previous review by Peff, >>> but a variable "ret" that says "0 is bad" somehow makes

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Lars Schneider wrote: >> >> I think this was already pointed out in the previous review by Peff, >> but a variable "ret" that says "0 is bad" somehow makes it hard to >> follow the code. Perhaps rename it to "int error", flip the meaning,

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 03 Aug 2016, at 22:29, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > >> +#define FILTER_CAPABILITIES_CLEAN(1u<<0) >> +#define FILTER_CAPABILITIES_SMUDGE (1u<<1) >> +#define FILTER_SUPPORTS_CLEAN(type) ((type) & FILTER_CAPABILITIES_CLEAN) >>

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

> On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:45, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > >> packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n >> packet: git< version=2\n >> packet: git< capabilities=clean smudge\n > > During the discussion on the future of

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > +#define FILTER_CAPABILITIES_CLEAN(1u<<0) > +#define FILTER_CAPABILITIES_SMUDGE (1u<<1) > +#define FILTER_SUPPORTS_CLEAN(type) ((type) & FILTER_CAPABILITIES_CLEAN) > +#define FILTER_SUPPORTS_SMUDGE(type) ((type) & FILTER_CAPABILITIES_SMUDGE) I would

Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

larsxschnei...@gmail.com writes: > packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n > packet: git< version=2\n > packet: git< capabilities=clean smudge\n During the discussion on the future of pack-protocol, it was pointed out that having to shove all capabilities on a single

[PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option

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