From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] transport-helper: do not request symbolic refs to remote helpers Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:24:38 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1421631307-20669-1-git-send-email-mh@glandium.org> <20150122070301.GA18195@glandium.org> <20150122080638.GA9546@glandium.org> <20150122221330.GA31912@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, srabbelier@gmail.com To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 22 23:24:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YEQBD-0006ny-GR for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:24:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753502AbbAVWYo (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:24:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:60995 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235AbbAVWYl (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:24:41 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC39732855; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:24:40 -0500 (EST) 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=eiODmHfzwDf8lPMzLHGez0TPjKA=; b=PA/lS7 gAEjLW80ghq6C3DanLCBD+fMPTHG+4XGdQUAZA5r9NMUGPCITAIUdup2zMJzbZoZ 73eG3s2OQsFVpiaibaqjuk0fWv8MzpTrl46lF5fh44td0nuTnA/luzBzFbwyoGP7 T8KrAqHiIAaUGng0vUO6zx8TF9KWh4mhrp6zo= 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=HgkxWfOITNONOp8TFoD4e24TSN4lk2L3 ptXqbQUb4NRdloW0+JXpVdVPWWpo3vYiI801ocasnj+nZ8wYt6NSYW2B7yuBaben 2GTXwXZzC3Qk11OGdqaiSu6BbFmzDp2tvYk+/zv7oC1iZQAQN4VGjv0RgFr3f5F1 icng0MEd/L8= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B229032854; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:24:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (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 2CFA932853; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:24:40 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20150122221330.GA31912@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:13:30 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 74CDB7CA-A285-11E4-997E-7BA29F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:52:55AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Does the new code avoid regressions for them and if so how? That is >> what was needed in the justification. >> >> For remote helpers that support the 'list' command, asking for a >> symref and asking for a ref that the symref points at both work OK >> and behave the same, and hopefully that would be true even when the >> latter is a symref that points yet another ref, so dereferencing >> only one level on our end when making a request, instead of letting >> the remote side dereference, is not likely to cause regression. > > If I'm not mistaken, in that case with more than one level of symref, > nothing would break more than it already is, the bug would only not be > fixed for that case. Yes, I think we are in agreement. All is well. > That said, does this theoretical double indirection actually > happen in the wild? With the proliferation of Git-using people and third-party tools that work with Git, I think the value of asking that question has diminished. People do strange things. And I do not think the patch under discussion does not introduce any new theoretical funnies; it fixes one known case and leaves the rest unfixed, without introducing any new breakage, which is perfectly fine and exactly how we want to make progress. If the unfixed one has a real-world need to be fixed, somebody will raise hand, and if they do not bother to even raise their hands, that is an indication that it is not worth our time worrying about it. The only thing we need to avoid, while making "one step at a time" progress, is to paint ourselves to a corner we cannot get out of by promising too much --- and I do not think the patch under discussion does that, either.