Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > The git command line expects Git servers to follow a specific order of >> >> "Command line"? It sounds like you are talking about the order of >> command line arguments and options, but apparently that is not what >> you are doing. Is it "The git over-the-wire protocol"? > > I meant to say the current Git implementation, as opposed to what is > written in the specification. I'll replace it with "The current C Git > implementation". Yeah, that would avoid confusing future readers; sounds good. >> Earlier, we said that shallow-info is not given when packfile is not >> there. That is captured in the updated EBNF above. We don't have a >> corresponding removal of a bullet point for wanted-refs section below >> but probably that is because the original did not have corresponding >> bullet point to begin with. > > That's because the corresponding bullet point had other information. > Quoted in full below: > >> * This section is only included if the client has requested a >> ref using a 'want-ref' line and if a packfile section is also >> included in the response. > > I could reword it to "If a packfile section is included in the response, > this section is only included if the client has requested a ref using a > 'want-ref' line", but I don't think that is significantly clearer. I don't either. I didn't mean to suggest to change anything in this part. I was just giving an observation---two parallel things do not get updates in tandem, and that is because they were not described the same way to begin with, which was a good enough explanation.
