From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578A01F955 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753429AbcG2S1t (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:27:49 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:51255 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753266AbcG2S1r (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:27:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 6729 invoked by uid 102); 29 Jul 2016 18:27:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:27:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 4270 invoked by uid 107); 29 Jul 2016 18:28:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:28:13 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:27:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:27:43 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Lars Schneider Cc: Jakub =?utf-8?B?TmFyxJlic2tp?= , Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , mlbright@gmail.com, Remi Galan Alfonso , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , e@80x24.org, ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Git filter protocol Message-ID: <20160729182743.GA9877@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160727000605.49982-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <579906C5.1050809@gmail.com> <20160728132906.GA21311@sigill.intra.peff.net> <579B087F.7090108@gmail.com> <31219A33-CA8A-44D1-9DE0-6448AA1A7571@gmail.com> <20160729155740.GB29773@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160729165018.GA6553@sigill.intra.peff.net> <9C2A3438-84BA-49FE-87AA-1084995A1E89@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9C2A3438-84BA-49FE-87AA-1084995A1E89@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > Here is the reject case (non-streaming): > > git> smudge > git> > git> > git> ...pkt-lines... > git> pktline-flush > > git< 0 > git< reject > > > Do you see a problem with this approach? Only that it seemed a little weird to me to have to write a meaningless "0" when "reject" covers the situation entirely. I don't think it's wrong, though (and even in some ways right, because it decouples the meaning of "reject" from the syntax of parsing, but I think it's OK for the protocol parser to understand the difference between success and failure codes). -Peff