From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] Support remote helpers implementing smart transports Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 09:12:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20091202171208.GD31648@spearce.org> References: <1259675838-14692-1-git-send-email-ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> <1259675838-14692-5-git-send-email-ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> <20091201192233.GL21299@spearce.org> <20091202055543.GC31244@Knoppix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ilari Liusvaara X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 02 18:12:25 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NFska-0008LW-O8 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:12:25 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755184AbZLBRMG (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755092AbZLBRMF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:05 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.211.182]:42151 "EHLO mail-yw0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754700AbZLBRMF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:12:05 -0500 Received: by ywh12 with SMTP id 12so429076ywh.21 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.4.38 with SMTP id g38mr374441ani.2.1259773931330; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (george.spearce.org [209.20.77.23]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 39sm630747yxd.63.2009.12.02.09.12.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:12:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091202055543.GC31244@Knoppix> 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: Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 11:22:33AM -0800, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > Why 'OK'? Currently remote-helpers return an empty blank line > > to any successful command, not 'OK'. > > Changed to "" (i.e. blank line) for next round. Arrrgh. Just to correct myself... the 'option' command uses 'ok', 'error', 'unsupported' as its response messages. Which means 'option' breaks the blank-line-is-ok convention I tried to hold you to above. I consider this a mistake on my part. 'option' should respond with a blank line on success just like 'fetch' or 'push' does. -- Shawn.