From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update packfile transfer protocol documentation Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:48:36 -0800 Message-ID: <7v1vkfnjpn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v4opbp1fa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091104005614.GD10505@spearce.org> <7vljinnllj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091104011802.GE10505@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Scott Chacon , git list To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 04 02:48:57 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 1N5UzY-0001CP-VA for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:48:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753778AbZKDBsp (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753633AbZKDBso (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:38549 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753328AbZKDBso (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B719E91969; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=REeD+PHy8nCZGizJAhdHPfuv848=; b=m92+lN aha+Nq5pSfGuspqpc/+XXhHf10cUkuUqYUlVLS9tkMT7ZCExwIMW6VKbuBAGD/tb nisuY5pwZ15e5FToOQy2Wpher0AuuXd3SjCp+pPcKuayrHpHSH7Ieqj9xpPI8eFp lCYy9pgjy7yOyFN4lyj2ES684RclbYiRiZ23M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=wAhB7sSGEEhKA5FSoCRurAEpAtqgdVPc 103hqV1iecL4nEU59sI1faoG2mydfuLlhoPVtdbcsfxExB6qcymYcRPywuEukUAN PlurmZoKTMTNl6o2ptUhenRIoKzovqSR+ZaCn6Aue8ZAioOnbikQmMIav/Rsa2Ux WFaBPyUagQI= Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AE691968; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0809391965; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:48:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20091104011802.GE10505@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Tue\, 3 Nov 2009 17\:18\:03 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2FA4D0E6-C8E4-11DE-B11C-A67CBBB5EC2E-77302942!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: >> > I don't think we ever send an empty packet. If we have no data to >> > send, why the hell did we create the packet header? >> >> Oh, I do not disagree that it is pointless, but the example that followed >> the part we are discussing also had "0004". I think it is Ok to allow it. > > If its pointless, why encourage it? Why not discourage it with SHOULD NOT? Oh, no, I didn't mean to _encourage_ it. I just thought that it being pointless at the semantic level would already be an enough discouragement for people who are intelligent enough. As I said, this was not an objection to start with. > Sure, but can't packet_write just return early without write() > if format_packet returned 4 (aka vsnprintf returned 0)? Ah, that's right.