From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixup no-progress for fetch & clone Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:56:29 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <7vfy8w3add.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vbqjk17a8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7iu80y6i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 24 18:55:50 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HL17c-0008Va-4d for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:55:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933527AbXBXRzB (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:55:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933529AbXBXRzB (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:55:01 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:57986 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933528AbXBXRzA (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:55:00 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HL16V-0001cE-6P for git@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:54:39 +0100 Received: from host-89-229-2-22.torun.mm.pl ([89.229.2.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:54:39 +0100 Received: from jnareb by host-89-229-2-22.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:54:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-89-229-2-22.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: Jakub Narebski User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Nicolas Pitre writes: >> >>> How does that solve the issue with servers (currently all of them) that >>> don't know about the new sideband? >> >> I actually happen to consider that a non problem. >> >> It is true that you can only prepare the client and server side >> by 1.5.1, and new clients talking to 1.5.0 or older servers >> would not be able to squelch the noise. But that is _not_ a new >> problem anyway, and given time the server side will eventually >> be updated to 1.5.1 or later. If anything else, it would give >> incentive to people to upgrade their servers to 1.5.1 ;-) > > Well... for such a special case feature I doubt this might be such a > great insentive. And since locally filtering on '\r' is so simple I > wonder what the complexity of the alternative solution really buys us. Slighly less bandwidth used (we don't send progress report)? -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git