From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D993733E8 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F97D46 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 02:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1724 invoked by uid 109); 30 Oct 2023 09:54:02 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:54:02 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 9833 invoked by uid 111); 30 Oct 2023 09:54:07 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 05:54:07 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 05:54:01 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Michal =?utf-8?B?U3VjaMOhbmVr?= Cc: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= , Alexander Mills , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: please add link / url to remote - when - git push Message-ID: <20231030095401.GA848451@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20231030063633.GA7451@tb-raspi4> <20231030085205.GF6241@kitsune.suse.cz> <20231030090626.GA84866@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231030093023.GG6241@kitsune.suse.cz> <20231030093919.GF84866@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231030094556.GI6241@kitsune.suse.cz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20231030094556.GI6241@kitsune.suse.cz> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:45:56AM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > Yes, this is a problem. Those messages are streamed out as we receive > > them from the server, and before we get any status report back. I don't > > think we'd want to buffer them, as they can be arbitrarily large (and > > may even be progress reports that are meant to be shown in real-time). > > Not when the user asked to not show progress. Sure, if you make the buffering behavior dependent on the presence of "-q". I guess that is not that hard to do, but it does increase the complexity of the code (you have both a streaming and a buffering code path). Anyway, I am not all that convinced this is a fruitful path versus just fixing the server side. But if you want to look into writing a patch, go for it. -Peff