On 02/22, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:26:47 -0800
> Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 02/21, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:12:53 -0800
> > > Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > -const struct ref *transport_get_remote_refs(struct transport *transport)
> > > > +const struct ref *transport_get_remote_refs(struct transport *transport,
> > > > + const struct argv_array *ref_patterns)
> > > > {
> > > > if (!transport->got_remote_refs) {
> > > > - transport->remote_refs = transport->vtable->get_refs_list(transport, 0, NULL);
> > > > + transport->remote_refs =
> > > > + transport->vtable->get_refs_list(transport, 0,
> > > > + ref_patterns);
> > > > transport->got_remote_refs = 1;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Should we do our own client-side filtering if the server side cannot do
> > > it for us (because it doesn't support protocol v2)? Either way, this
> > > decision should be mentioned in the commit message.
> >
> > If someone wants to add this in the future they can, but that is outside
> > the scope of this series.
>
> In that case, also document that this function is allowed to return refs
> that do not match the ref patterns.
>
> Unlike in patch 15 (which deals with the interface between the transport
> code and transport vtables, which can be changed as long as the
> transport code is aware of it, as I wrote in [1]), this may result in
> user-visible differences depending on which protocol is used. But after
> more thinking, I don't think we're in a situation yet where having extra
> refs shown/written are harmful, and if it comes to that, we can tighten
> this code later without backwards incompatibility. So, OK, this is fine.
>
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180221145639.c6cf2409ce2120109bdd169f@xxxxxxxxxx/
I'll add the documentation.
--
Brandon Williams
