Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > In other words, if I understand correctly, it's describing an issue > that also exists in protocol v0 for https. I would be *very* > interested in any evidence one way or another about whether I am > understanding correctly. I am assuming that the issue experienced by these people after flipping the default to v2 was *not* experienced by the same folks back when they were not on v2. If not, I cannot explain why their report say "it suddenly started doing this". > ..., since we've been using protocol v2 as the > default at $DAYJOB for quite a long time now. Is it possible that folks getting hurt after 2.26 got released have quite different use case / fetch pattern from what you see at $DAYJOB, which are covered well in the current code? Keep using v2 at $DAYJOB may not help us diagnose the issue more than flipping the default back (and at $DAYJOB the default is under your control ;-).
