Michael Haggerty writes:
> If I understand correctly, after this patch the server advertises the
> "atomic" capability even though it doesn't actually have that ability
> until a later patch. It seems to me that the order of the patches should
> be reversed: don't advertise the capability before
On 12/19/2014 08:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg
>
> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
> * allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
>
> There is currently
On 22.12.2014 14:52, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> From: Ronnie Sahlberg
>>
>> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
>> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
>> * allow send-
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> From: Ronnie Sahlberg
>
> This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
> * allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
> * allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
>
> There is cu
From: Ronnie Sahlberg
This adds support to the protocol between send-pack and receive-pack to
* allow receive-pack to inform the client that it has atomic push capability
* allow send-pack to request atomic push back.
There is currently no setting in send-pack to actually request that atomic
pus
5 matches
Mail list logo
