From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: Bad objects error since upgrading GitHub servers to 1.6.1 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:41:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20090128044150.GI1321@spearce.org> References: <7v1vuo1f6d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vvds0z1c1.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk58gz04l.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vfxj4yzjj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090128020220.GE1321@spearce.org> <7v3af4yvmu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090128033020.GF1321@spearce.org> <7v1vuoxcxk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: PJ Hyett , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 28 05:43:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LS2Gj-0006KC-Pj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:43:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752491AbZA1Elw (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:41:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752397AbZA1Elv (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:41:51 -0500 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:60413 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752473AbZA1Elv (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:41:51 -0500 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D8E9538210; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v1vuoxcxk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > > > > Oh, right, its not. I was pointing out that the last time the > > protocol changed in a way the server can infer something about the > > client, which IIRC was 41fa7d2, we still don't have a way to tell > > what the client is. > > But you are still talking as if there is one protocol you can call "the > protocol", but it is not. The send-pack receive-pack protocol is on topic > in this thread; the quoted commit was about a separate and independent > fetch-pack upload-pack protocol. It does not matter when that unrelated > protocol was enhanced. Blargh. Of course you are right. Its been a long 2 months for me at work. I'm too #@*#@!@! tired to keep the basics straight anymore. I'm going to shut up now. -- Shawn.