Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -126,6 +129,12 @@ static int read_pack_objects_stdout(int outfd, struct output_state *os)
> }
> os->used += readsz;
>
> + if (!os->packfile_started) {
> + os->packfile_started = 1;
> + if (use_protocol_v2)
> + packet_write_fmt(1, "packfile\n");
If we fix this function so that the only byte in the buffer is held
back without emitted when os->used == 1 as I alluded to, this may
have to be done a bit later, as with such a change, it is no longer
guaranteed that send_client_data() will be called after this point.
> + }
> +
> if (os->used > 1) {
> send_client_data(1, os->buffer, os->used - 1);
> os->buffer[0] = os->buffer[os->used - 1];
> +static void flush_progress_buf(struct strbuf *progress_buf)
> +{
> + if (!progress_buf->len)
> + return;
> + send_client_data(2, progress_buf->buf, progress_buf->len);
> + strbuf_reset(progress_buf);
> +}
Interesting.
> static void create_pack_file(const struct object_array *have_obj,
> - const struct object_array *want_obj)
> + const struct object_array *want_obj,
> + int use_protocol_v2)
> {
> struct child_process pack_objects = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> struct output_state output_state = {0};
> @@ -260,9 +278,13 @@ static void create_pack_file(const struct object_array *have_obj,
> */
> sz = xread(pack_objects.err, progress,
> sizeof(progress));
> - if (0 < sz)
> - send_client_data(2, progress, sz);
> - else if (sz == 0) {
> + if (0 < sz) {
> + if (output_state.packfile_started)
> + send_client_data(2, progress, sz);
> + else
> + strbuf_add(&output_state.progress_buf,
> + progress, sz);
Isn't progress output that goes to the channel #2 pretty much
independent from the payload stream that carries the pkt-line
command like "packfile" plus the raw pack stream? It somehow
feels like an oxymoron to _buffer_ progress indicator, as it
defeats the whole point of progress report to buffer it.
