Hi,
Brandon Williams wrote:
> Introduce protocol_v2, a new value for 'enum protocol_version'.
> Subsequent patches will fill in the implementation of protocol_v2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Yay!
[...]
> +++ b/builtin/fetch-pack.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,9 @@ int cmd_fetch_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> PACKET_READ_GENTLE_ON_EOF);
>
> switch (discover_version(&reader)) {
> + case protocol_v2:
> + die("support for protocol v2 not implemented yet");
> + break;
This code goes away in a later patch, so no need to do anything about
this, but the 'break' is redundant after the 'die'.
[...]
> --- a/builtin/receive-pack.c
> +++ b/builtin/receive-pack.c
> @@ -1963,6 +1963,12 @@ int cmd_receive_pack(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> unpack_limit = receive_unpack_limit;
>
> switch (determine_protocol_version_server()) {
> + case protocol_v2:
> + /*
> + * push support for protocol v2 has not been implemented yet,
> + * so ignore the request to use v2 and fallback to using v0.
> + */
> + break;
As you mentioned in the cover letter, it's probably worth doing the
same fallback on the client side (send-pack), too.
Otherwise when this client talks to a new-enough server, it would
request protocol v2 and then get confused when the server responds
with the protocol v2 it requested.
Thanks,
Jonathan
