From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>,
Matt Cote <mcote@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] connect: let write_command_and_capabilities() send a promisor-remote reply
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:34:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq4idlhe69.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8q2xhexs.fsf@gitster.g> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:18:07 -0800")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> void write_command_and_capabilities(struct strbuf *req_buf, const char *command,
>> - const struct string_list *server_options)
>> + const struct string_list *server_options,
>> + const char *promisor_remote_reply)
>> {
>> const char *hash_name;
>> int advertise_sid = 0;
>> @@ -754,6 +755,9 @@ void write_command_and_capabilities(struct strbuf *req_buf, const char *command,
>> die(_("the server does not support algorithm '%s'"),
>> the_hash_algo->name);
>> }
>> + if (promisor_remote_reply)
>> + packet_buf_write(req_buf, "promisor-remote=%s",
>> + promisor_remote_reply);
>> packet_buf_delim(req_buf);
>> }
>
> This function was designed to have a fairly generic "here we send a
> command and then capability exchange based on the settings stored in
> the string list" interface for extensibility. It is highly annoying
> that we are now adding a specific option here to be sent outside the
> framework.
>
> Isn't the misdesign being corrected that the "promisor-remote=..."
> string was not sent as part of these server options list of strings?
> Can we fix it without contaminating the API like this patch does, or
> is it too late?
By this I do not mean that promisor-remote=... has to be sent as one
of the server options (i.e., making the string sent to something
silly like "server-option=promisor-remote=..."). Rather, I am
wondering if the existing server_options string list should be made
into a more generalized form so that the string list can contain
elements whose keys other than "server-option" can also be
contained (like "promisor-remote"). IOW, the caller can decide to
put "promisor-remote=...promisor remote reply..." in the list,
instead of sending it as a totally separate parameter, whose
semantics is hardcoded (i.e. the fourth parameter to this function
will be sent as a value to "promistor-remote=...").
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-12 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-12 19:58 [PATCH 0/3] Fix promisor-remote reply missing from fetch Christian Couder
2026-11-12 19:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] connect: let write_command_and_capabilities() send a promisor-remote reply Christian Couder
2026-11-12 22:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-11-12 22:34 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-11-12 19:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] fetch-pack: ensure fetch sends " Christian Couder
2026-11-12 19:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc: gitprotocol-v2: send the promisor-remote reply with fetch Christian Couder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqq4idlhe69.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcote@nvidia.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox