From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54C061BBBDD for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727808463; cv=none; b=Rciu6O0tU4FIitftLYx2bUR6sMXO7+35e8hPhDr7cYxlOh8IF5BeOIsP51yO1qMz/Ge/yWBlF4XtuJBTY92c17Ky54PMFim+yKGXGmS12UvXNzqfbCmZKFzrWc5sqVQFMISzED/3EX1x213CUuR7jGoaTn7ihSFrPr97AvCzmXY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727808463; c=relaxed/simple; bh=o+geW4KyiLu/leuqG5QJAMacLq9aUEuv6O40Vy4oAow=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A9TyUa8+Vw7iqJQBGxQxehTcmSqQAlCrzjIgvXV9YX9JZKgmPw2+hmL1z0UxKyLFvwvhi2tDOitScrKYjVGZoeSs9y0xnS3/sg0l3TWpY/CofiokVvjX53qIVNF2B1doFOzrsVG1ozJbWqDLgIvN3HeuwCOp/U6xjsk8Ntxozpg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=AmWtfB7t; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=erJlLFTZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.150 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="AmWtfB7t"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="erJlLFTZ" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5881813810CA; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 14:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 01 Oct 2024 14:47:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1727808460; x=1727894860; bh=Uq+ChXAUNc H33D24q6YZzKAQx1pTmuAWsQ3hIibf5/M=; b=AmWtfB7t1P2Z4hy6mWkpxKieLG oUURzduur8Vs2+23GFWsOitv+QCLm01GCJrQn/JH8IIPVysd0rX1aJM5iA0RGhor QBuBgExwotsNItz3RJKjXYuqpEmd5HxhD++v4dbSQH/unBGFKa9DHpkG7c4ec7MD Br6cVF/XP+l6JzHh6anJ3T06HykIJjZaPw/jUcsPXk143SbE9y3U23DnrGqy4ur5 CO3zTt3L0jagOOHQGrI0XXm+1wHc6lwMZMUQR8Sde13SMa+ecIayzoDwBF/Ve+Nd i1g6yKB/3q8X2aiPxycO4BmsOkjeR3XWr8Z4tS/dUKO+AwLYKZk4j8V2ChkA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1727808460; x=1727894860; bh=Uq+ChXAUNcH33D24q6YZzKAQx1pT muAWsQ3hIibf5/M=; b=erJlLFTZuMgptiOe4C+sX9hCkOpNWjC+YZWVFruG/KkQ DzRNXUBKcOO/yYoNuszzxTSTLBdxVzyKFIDJ8ZRduEiCMj9XUd1s6/zEOmruUgRP ORsdqjYe3HEE4OkICkW85wtnu29HexMNvcdyTNBmHH9kt22BNHPE3rqSoSuFGuBX 89Fr9bmzYrTuKREAj13fazbmX2wWxFxpIPwiie42jPJ2lw0Qcg8BfhndMvXotxG7 NqINlJLKAZVKa+efL9YmMye4zVg1cN3X77ixuALKOlb7QHraxrIV6FOZIRlak1wK eliMKOX3K66upsT2I5lFOjr2qL4HmeHRegofWimhAw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvddujedguddvjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredt necuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsoh igrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueef jeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieegieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgt phhtthhopeekpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrih hmpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishhtihgrnhdrtghouhguvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm pdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhope hjohhhnhgtrghikeeisehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtthgrhihl ohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsuhhnshhhihhnvgesshhunhhshhhinhgvtghord gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishgtohholhesthhugihfrghmihhlhidrohhrghdp rhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 1 Oct 2024 14:47:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, John Cai , Taylor Blau , Eric Sunshine , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Add 'promisor-remote' capability to protocol v2 In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 1 Oct 2024 12:14:12 +0200") References: <20240731134014.2299361-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20240910163000.1985723-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20240910163000.1985723-4-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 11:47:37 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > Now I'm not against advertising a name and storing it in our config when > we create the additional remote, for example by storing it as a separate > key "remote..promisor-name". But the name of the remote > itself should not be controlled by the server, but should instead be > generated by the client. Thanks. In an earlier round of the review, I noticed that the remote side gives each promisor remote it suggests a name, but I failed to realize that it is used without any say from the user at the receiving end in the local repository---which is horrible. The remote end wants to keep referring to a promisor remote in such a way that both sides can understand when the same promisor remote is referred to in the future, and I am OK for the protocol to allow the remote to give a name to a promisor remote. Such a name needs to be kept separate from the name the end-user locally uses to refer to the promisor remote (if they follow the suggestion given over the protocol). Do we need some mapping mechanism to do so? A name N the remote A gave to another remote B has to keep referring to the remote we know as B today, even if we rename B to C. Thanks.