From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
To: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>,
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Comments pack protocol description in "Git Community Book" (second round)
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:13:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090607201324.GB16497@spearce.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200906071021.08922.jnareb@gmail.com>
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> In description of sideband:
>
> > When a sideband is used, 2 means "progress messages, most likely
> > suitable for stderr". 1 means "pack data". 3 means "fatal error
> > message, and we're dead now". No other channels are used or valid.
>
> it is true that no other channels are used, but it is not true that
> other channels are invalid. If they are not supported by client, there
> are simply dropped. This opens possibility of future extension. I guess
> that channel 0 is invalid, because it would be understood as _input_
> channel (for sending data from client to server), though.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong here...
An implementation reading a muxed stream SHOULD fail fast if it
encounters a channel number it doesn't understand.
JGit already fails fast with an error if it gets anything not in 1-3.
C Git already fails fast with an error as well.
An implementation writing a muxed stream shouldn't produce a channel
number unless it knows the reader can support it.
To add a new channel number to the supported set, a new capability
should be introduced to the protocol, and enabled if both sides
have agreed to support it.
Currently, stream 0 and stream 4-255 are undefined. That is,
any new capability could claim that stream and start to use it,
if it needed to.
I think the primary Git contributors would prefer to see new channels
in the 4-255 range, as then 0 can continue to stay invalid... aka
"not true" in C. Like in the pack type codes, we might want to save
0 for the day when all 1-255 are filled and we need to expand the
channel number range into 2 bytes. But even then, we could just
do a new side-band-64kv2 capability or something. :-)
--
Shawn.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-07 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-12 21:29 Request for detailed documentation of git pack protocol Jakub Narebski
2009-05-12 23:34 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-05-14 8:24 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-14 14:57 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-05-14 15:02 ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-05-15 20:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-05-15 16:51 ` Clemens Buchacher
2009-05-14 18:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-05-14 20:27 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-14 13:55 ` Scott Chacon
2009-05-14 14:44 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-05-14 15:01 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-15 0:58 ` A Large Angry SCM
2009-05-15 19:05 ` Ealdwulf Wuffinga
2009-06-02 21:39 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-02 23:27 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 0:50 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 1:29 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 2:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-06-03 2:15 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 9:21 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 14:48 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 15:07 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 15:39 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 15:50 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 16:51 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 16:56 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 20:19 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 20:24 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 22:04 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 22:04 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 22:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-06-03 22:46 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-04 7:17 ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-06-04 7:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-06-06 16:33 ` Scott Chacon
2009-06-06 17:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-06-06 17:41 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 21:38 ` Tony Finch
2009-06-03 17:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-06-03 19:05 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-06-03 2:18 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-06-03 10:47 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 14:17 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 20:56 ` Tony Finch
2009-06-03 21:20 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 21:53 ` Tony Finch
2009-06-04 8:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-04 11:41 ` Tony Finch
2009-06-04 18:41 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-03 12:29 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-03 14:19 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-04 20:55 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-04 21:57 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-05 0:45 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-05 7:24 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-05 8:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-06 21:38 ` Comments pack protocol description in "Git Community Book" (second round) Jakub Narebski
2009-06-06 21:58 ` Scott Chacon
2009-06-07 8:21 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-07 20:13 ` Shawn O. Pearce [this message]
2009-06-07 20:43 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-13 9:30 ` Comments pack protocol description in "RFC for the Git Packfile Protocol" (long) Jakub Narebski
2009-06-07 20:06 ` Comments pack protocol description in "Git Community Book" (second round) Shawn O. Pearce
2009-06-09 9:39 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-06-09 14:28 ` Shawn O. Pearce
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090607201324.GB16497@spearce.org \
--to=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=ae@op5.se \
--cc=dot@dotat.at \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=schacon@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).