From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow curl to rewind the read buffers Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:46:41 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: References: <7vbprg1h3m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 01 18:49:10 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lp3bw-0006BG-Fc for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:48:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760089AbZDAQqs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759433AbZDAQqs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:48 -0400 Received: from smtp2.abo.fi ([130.232.213.77]:48804 "EHLO smtp2.abo.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757866AbZDAQqs (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:48 -0400 Received: from albin.abo.fi (albin.abo.fi [130.232.81.192]) by smtp2.abo.fi (8.14.3/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n31GkfcX002337; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:46:41 +0300 X-X-Sender: mstorsjo@localhost.localdomain In-Reply-To: <7vbprg1h3m.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtp2.abo.fi [130.232.213.77]); Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:46:41 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by foxy.abo.fi (foxy.abo.fi: Wed Apr 1 19:46:41 2009) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 130.232.213.77 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > It may be obvious to people proficient in cURL, but I had to guess that > you perhaps meant to say "when using multi-pass authentication methods, > cURL library may need to rewind the read buffers (depending on what is fed > by the server), and in order to allow the library to do so, we need to > tell it how by providing the way to manipulate the buffers we supply with > these IOCTL callbacks." > > Do I understand you correctly? Yeah, that's exactly correct. > My point is that the your two-line statement of fact (with a bit more > explanation of the fact that follows) was clear but it was unclear to me > how that fact translates to the need of what the patch does. We would > want the commit log message to be helpful to people who look at the code 6 > months down the line and wonder why these lines were added. The original commit comment was a bit vague in retrospect, yes. I'll reply with an updated version soon. Thanks! // Martin