From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] receive-pack: Wrap status reports inside side-band-64k Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 Message-ID: <7vd40j1j2a.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1265403462-20572-1-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> <1265403462-20572-6-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 05 22:14:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NdVVq-0006bm-Ey for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:14:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757471Ab0BEVOp (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:14:45 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:61742 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752939Ab0BEVOo (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:14:44 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DD697165; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:14:43 -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=IR3RZ9jjwcDechUHHSj5hk/27IM=; b=ERAq07 EhFvkjbq6Ffl8udmRVnXmVazZVv6id1EdAKqXcAM0rHZ/CwJqxTJPQCg1//6QhPt pErR/DDYz6TFwyVDexLH+vYDn0sIxx4EI1KTa+6qmXJIFM3FZTo6rBDVkCaY0KkP K35dEcF4HYzzEdzKHzDT520HGGVzs+DToEQiY= 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=Ciu3TanFSbAHFwtLT5AoiMX7O/D1xrCW EQ9PLQTjC6pzFhuK5VEi0vXoFMIiIDIwl6ZzDxUlxXlyWFIE+pFZmGswCGfD8i82 CYJHsdSeXQT3UNcpkm3KXhkMbWwrtyuSq1YngHs8YdN9HVgwKj5MVFuYJ8xpFO00 DzjsI9UW1ck= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A7097161; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:14:41 -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-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA42D97160; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:14:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1265403462-20572-6-git-send-email-spearce@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Fri\, 5 Feb 2010 12\:57\:41 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 799CFC86-129B-11DF-A7B1-6AF7ED7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.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: > If the client requests the side-band-64k protocol capability we > now wrap the status report data inside of packets sent to band #1. > This permits us to later send additional progress or informational > messages down band #2. > > If side-band-64k was enabled, we always send a final flush packet > to let the client know we are done transmitting. Two questions. - Why does use_sideband, the variable with the same name as a boolean variable used by other parts of the system to decide whether we should or should not use the sideband communiocation, get a value other than 0 or 1? What is the benefit of using it to keep an actual value? Does the benefit outweigh the confusion factor? - What happens if client wants only side-band, not 64k? This is just theoretical and "we don't bother" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I am just curious ;-).