> On 12 Aug 2016, at 19:13, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> If we do the success first and then error out halfway, we >>> still have to clean up, so I do not see how this impacts >>> implementation? >> >> That is true. The reasoning is that an error in between is somewhat >> less expected. Therefore additional work is OK. >> >> An error upfront is much more likely because it is also a mechanism >> for the filter to reject certain files. If the filter is configured >> as "required=false" then this reject would actually be OK. > > Unless the reasoning is "an error in between is so rare that we are > OK if the protocol misbehaves and the receiving end omits error > handing", I am not so sure how "therefore additional work is OK" is > a reasonable conclusion. Maybe I need to reword. An error is detected in either way if something goes wrong. The advantage of the two step status is that if we fail early then Git does not even need to create structures to read the response. See Peff's answer here: http://public-inbox.org/git/20160806121421.bs7n4lhed7phdshb%40sigill.intra.peff.net/ http://public-inbox.org/git/20160805222710.chefh5kiktyzketh%40sigill.intra.peff.net/ Thanks, Lars-- 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