Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> +action = "noop" / "ls-remote" / "fetch" / "push" / "fetch-shallow" > ... >> If we are going in this "in-protocol message switches the service" >> route, we should also support "archive" as one of the actions, no? >> Yes, I know you named the document "pack-protocol" and "archive" >> does not give you packs, but "ls-remote" does not transfer pack data, >> either. > > I'll add that. Also I need to incorporate shallow in one way or another. This level of detail may not matter at this point yet, but it is unclear to me why you have "fetch-shallow" as a separate thing (while not having "push-shallow"). The current infrastructure does already allow fetching into shallow repositories witout needing a separate action that is different from "fetch" (aka "upload-pack"). I would not be surprised if it were "I can deepn you if you want" capability, but I do not understand why you are singling out "shallow" as something that needs such a special treatment. -- 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