On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:39:35PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > I think this is the reverse case of next_capabilities in the upload-pack
> > side, so I'll make the reverse suggestion. :) Would it make things nicer
> > if both v1 and v2 parsed the capabilities into a string_list?
>
> Ok, I'll do that. Though this makes future enhancements a bit uneasy.
> Say we want to transport a message by the server admins, this might be
> the right place to do.
>
> if (starts_with("message"))
> fprintf(stderr, ....
>
> Of course we can later add this in the future, but it would break older
> clients (clients as of this patch series). That's why I like the idea of
> adding a prefix here. Maybe just a "c:" as an abbreviation for capability.
I don't understand how that breaks existing clients. Under your scheme,
the older client says "message? That does not start with capability:, so
I must ignore it". Without the "capability:" flag, it becomes "message?
I do not know that type, so I must ignore it".
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
