--------------
lilinchao@xxxxxxxxxx
>On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:28:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > + } else if (!strcmp(reader.line, "version 1")) {
>> > + die(_("v1 is just the original protocol with a version string, use v0 or v2 instead."));
>>
>> The user may no longer get "invalid response; got 'version 1'", but
>> the above does not still explain why v1 is bad and v0 or v2 is
>> welcome, either. IOW, I do not think the patch improves the message
>> to achieve what it attempted to do, i.e.
>>
>> ... but the other side just treat it as "invalid response", this
>> can't explain why is not ok.
>>
>> I wonder if it is a sensible and better alternative to treat v1
>> response as if we got v0 (if v1 is truly the same as v0 except for
>> the initial version advertisement).
>>
>> Input from those who are familiar with the protocol versions is very
>> much appreciated.
>
>Yes, "v1" is supposed to behave just like v0, except with the version
>advertisement (it is true that there is no point in normal people using
>it, but the purpose was to make sure the version advertisement worked).
>
>I am not sure who is rejecting it, though. Our test suite passes with
>GIT_TEST_PROTOCOL_VERSION=1. Running something like:
>
> $ GIT_TRACE_PACKET=1 git -c protocol.version=1 ls-remote https://github.com/git/git
>
>yields a conversation like (cut down for clarity):
>
> git< # service=git-upload-pack
> git< 0000
> git< version 1
> git< 1234abcd[...etc, this is a normal v0/v1 advertisement]
>
>So the version string is there, but it does not trigger the problem
>described by this patch. That's because check_smart_http(), after seeing
>the "# service" line and the flush, takes all the rest of the packetized
>data and gives it to parse_git_refs(), which handles the version field
>line via discover_version().
>
> Aside: on gitlab.com, the v1 response looks like a v0 response, with
> no extra header. I guess they did not bother to implement v1, which is
> OK, since it was not useful after the initial experiment.
>
>So everything seems to be working as intended. Is there some particular
>server that returns "version 1" in the wrong way, triggering the die()?
>
On gitee.com, I got "version 1", and the process died here.
>One curiosity is that for v2, the response from github.com does include
>the "service" line. So it follows the same path as v1, and never hits
>the "version 2" line check here. But http-backend omits the "service"
>line, due to 237ffedd46 (http: eliminate "# service" line when using
>protocol v2, 2018-03-15).
>
Keen observation :)
>So it's interesting that GitHub behaves differently than http-backend
>here. It's not surprising, since the HTTP framing is all done by a
>custom server there, which implemented off the spec. What _is_
>surprising is that the client seems perfectly happy to see either form,
>and nobody has noticed the difference until just now.
>
>IMHO the spec is very unclear here; it says "client makes a smart
>info/refs request as described in http-protocol.txt", but doesn't call
>out the difference in the response. It's only implied by the example:
>
> A v2 server would reply:
>
> S: 200 OK
> S: <Some headers>
> S: ...
> S:
> S: 000eversion 2\n
> S: <capability-advertisement>
>
>where it is unclear whether the blank line is separating HTTP headers
>from the body (and thus "..." is some headers), or if it is separating
>the "# service" line and matching flush from the rest of the response
>body.
>
>I note that gitlab.com also returns the "service" line for v2 (I don't
>know anything about their implementation, but I would not be at all
>surprised if they also use a custom HTTP endpoint; apache+http-backend
>is not very flexible or scalable).
>
gitee.com returns the "version 1" line for v1, so died for invalid server response
and it returns the "version 2" line for v2, which is expected.
>Anyway, that's all just an interesting side note. The client is happy
>with either form (though it might be nice if we had tests for the "#
>service" form; I suspect our tests don't cover that because they are all
>using http-backend).
>
>Getting back to the patch at hand, if there is a server saying "version
>1" without a "service" line, then I think that is a bug in that server.
>
If the problem is on the server side, then, is this patch worth continuing?
Thanks!
>-Peff
