From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829432047F for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750982AbdGZSOF (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:14:05 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51411 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbdGZSOE (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:14:04 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74A3935B5; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:14:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=pS0EwTW2+y1szm35d9/RnDi0pxM=; b=Zi6dRA FKdQzt5CoKkjvs9HjU3CnjDjUf033+5F7ty9NysfaI/PGaJXIfCQjlgcsemw1+EJ XITbqB+csxi/Ic2iIM29RjTt6Gio5BsMhWnke64YVyFYvHB87NrTFXp8axIYgWMI a+QXNADLL+GG9ELufAbpE3ppdtE7/JYNVcYUo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mO40vAoaKy0PWE7PQudaZKeL7Ba4g9AR 4395RDm65F81+DYfVPSTErP1sXD/sdtrwA6jmz3JOLFsjHhm76k17/OHxIzAFexD QcAkgrshPtEzuai3TWVmQeuqDfxM11M2CUcIoEn7k/AyujjeV7D1Nhm2dbAhL7W0 RVXS/yTGkUA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB33935B4; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20743935B1; Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:14:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lars Schneider Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org, benpeart@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] sub-process: refactor handshake to common function References: <20170724213810.29831-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:14:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Lars Schneider's message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:52:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3469B564-722E-11E7-8B79-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Lars Schneider writes: > Please note that I've recently refactored the capabilities negotiation a bit: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/1514c8edd62d96006cd1de31e906ed5798dd4681 > > This change is still cooking in `next`. I am not sure how this should/could > be handled but maybe you can use my refactoring as your base? I think they can play well together as independent topics. The known_caps[] thing you introduced essentially is the same as the struct subprocess_capability capablities[] Jonathan has. Please check $ git show "pu^{/jt/subprocess-handshake' into pu}" convert.c to see if it makes sense. Thanks.