Re: Revamping the git protocol

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

Dear diary, on Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 05:50:20PM CEST, I got a letter
where "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> told me that...
> Another issue is that currently there is no error information propagated 
> back to the client; the server logs an error in its own logs, but the 
> client is simply disconnected.

Yes. I agree that while it seems quite complex compared to what we have
now, your proposal has good points. But if we are going with the
challenge-response at all and if we are going with the simple form,
I was merely trying to make sure that it is as compatible as possible.

> Anyone noticed that either of those schemes aren't actually 
> backward-compatible in any way (old client talking to new server will be 
> disconnected), and that unfortunately is the best thing one can do with 
> the current setup, exactly because there is no option negotiation phase?

Yes, option negotiation would solve this for us. But my scheme _is_
backwards-compatible in the way that new client taking to old server
will not be disconnected, so it's 50% better than the original proposal.

But I think that considering the long run, we should either not do this
challenge-response thing at all, and fix the problem by other (Linus')
means, or go for the "complex" scheme. I'd prefer the latter - sending
the error messages to the client alone is a huge improvement.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.