Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I don't think we ever send an empty packet. If we have no data to > > send, why the hell did we create the packet header? > > Oh, I do not disagree that it is pointless, but the example that followed > the part we are discussing also had "0004". I think it is Ok to allow it. If its pointless, why encourage it? Why not discourage it with SHOULD NOT? > The original intent of packet_flush() was that everything else could be > kept buffered in-core without going to write() until packet_flush() is > called. The protocol was defined in a way that we won't wait for > listening a response from the other end to an earlier message we "sent" > with packet_write() but haven't called packet_flush() yet hence could > still be in our buffer. We still have this comment: > > /* > * If we buffered things up above (we don't, but we should), > * we'd flush it here > */ > void packet_flush(int fd) The smart-http series causes fetch-pack to buffer. :-) > And once we start buffering, allowing "0004" packet_write() wouldn't even > be a problem; it can be optimized out in the buffering layer. Sure, but can't packet_write just return early without write() if format_packet returned 4 (aka vsnprintf returned 0)? -- Shawn. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html