On 02/26, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> > Introduce protocol_v2, a new value for 'enum protocol_version'.
> > Subsequent patches will fill in the implementation of protocol_v2.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com>
> > ---
>
> Yay!
>
> [...]
> > +++ b/builtin/fetch-pack.c
> > @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ int cmd_fetch_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const
> > char *prefix)
> > PACKET_READ_GENTLE_ON_EOF);
> >
> > switch (discover_version(&reader)) {
> > + case protocol_v2:
> > + die("support for protocol v2 not implemented yet");
> > + break;
>
> This code goes away in a later patch, so no need to do anything about
> this, but the 'break' is redundant after the 'die'.
I'll fix that.
>
> [...]
> > --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
> > +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> > @@ -1963,6 +1963,12 @@ int cmd_receive_pack(int argc, const char **argv,
> > const char *prefix)
> > unpack_limit = receive_unpack_limit;
> >
> > switch (determine_protocol_version_server()) {
> > + case protocol_v2:
> > + /*
> > + * push support for protocol v2 has not been implemented yet,
> > + * so ignore the request to use v2 and fallback to using v0.
> > + */
> > + break;
>
> As you mentioned in the cover letter, it's probably worth doing the
> same fallback on the client side (send-pack), too.
>
> Otherwise when this client talks to a new-enough server, it would
> request protocol v2 and then get confused when the server responds
> with the protocol v2 it requested.
Some patches later on ensure this.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
--
Brandon Williams
