On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:37:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In any case, even though I merged these three to 'next', I think we > need to either revert 3/3 or do s/pack-file/packfile/ throughout the > pack-protocol documentation. The original has something like this: > > The pack-file MUST NOT be sent if the only command used is 'delete'. > > A pack-file MUST be sent if either create or update command is used, > even if the server already has all the necessary objects. In this > case the client MUST send an empty pack-file. The only time this > is likely to happen is if the client is creating > a new branch or a tag that points to an existing obj-id. > > and these are explicitly referring to what EBNF defines as "pack-file". > Changing them to "packfile" is simply wrong. Yeah, I agree they should agree with the EBNF. And my inclination is for "packfile", as it is refering to the concept of the on-the-wire packfile data (there is no "file ending in .pack" in this context). Which I guess argues for a further patch. -Peff -- 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