On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:59:57PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > When the server has hung up after sending an ERR packet to the > > > client, the client might still be writing, for example a "done" > > > line. Therefore the client might get a write error before reading > > > the ERR packet. > > > > > > When fetching, this could result in the client displaying a > > > "Broken pipe" error, instead of the more useful error sent by > > > the server in the ERR packet. > > > > Hmm, if the connection gets severed just before the ERR packet the > > other side has written, we will see "Broken pipe" if we write > > "done", and no amount of "try to read to collect as much what they > > said as possible" would help. If you are lucky and the connection > > is broken after the ERR reaches on this side, such an "extra effort" > > may help, but is it really worth the effort? It is not clear to me > > if the extra complexity, one more API function people need to learn, > > and the need to think which one to use every time they want to say > > write_in_full(), are justifiable. > > > > I dunno. > > I think that you're right. The more that I thought about my suggestion, > the more dumb I was convinced that it was. Now I'm confused about which suggestion. The overall patch's purpose is still good, I think (see my other response). But I agree that having an alternate write_in_full() is spreading the hack too far outside of fetch-pack (and as I wrote in [1], I really don't understand what it's trying to do). -Peff [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200428083336.GA2405176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
