Re: [PATCH] git-cvsserver: handle CVS 'noop' command.

[Stefan Karpinski <stefan.karpinski@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Imagine what you would do when you discover another request a random other
> client sends that you would want to ignore just like you did for 'noop'.
> Viewed in this light, your patch is a very short sighted one that has a
> big negative impact on maintainability.

Fair enough. I was trying to change the minimal amount that I could
and still fix the breakage. Your patch is much better. Not to mention
terser ;-)

> A true no-brainer that has no negative impact would have been something
> like the attached patch, that adds a method that does not do anything.
>
> Even then, between req_CATCHALL and req_EMPTY, I am not sure which one is
> expected by the clients, without consulting to the protocol documentation
> for cvs server/client communication.  In the attached patch, I am guessing
> from your patch that at least Tortoise does not expect any response to
> it.

I have consulted the CVS protocol documentation (found at
http://www.wandisco.com/techpubs/cvs-protocol.pdf), which states the
following about the "noop" command:

"Response expected: yes. This request is a null command in the sense
that it doesn't do anything, but
merely (as with any other requests expecting a response) sends back
any responses pertaining to
pending errors, pending Notified responses, etc."

So apparently a response *is* expected. I'm not really familiar enough
with CVS or git-cvsserver to determine what that means it should do,
but I suspect from perusing the code that req_EMPTY is the appropriate
action.

Moreover, I've moved on from using git-cvsserver myself, having
instead convinced my Windows-using compatriots to use msysgit instead.
So if you feel that this change is unwarranted, feel free to just drop
it.