On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:42:15AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:37:50PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > I am sympathetic that this used to work, and now doesn't. But this proxy > > case is affected by the problem that ae1a7eefff was solving. The root of > > the issue is just that "socat" in its default form is not doing the > > right thing. So I'd prefer not to try to make any change to Git's > > behavior here. > > As a kernel developer I learned hard way that breaking user experience by > kernel changes considered a kernel regression, even if userspace "does it > wrong"™. I'm not sure what standard of care for Git users is. > > I'm fine adjusting the proxy script and make my colleagues aware about the > issue, but the approach doesn't scale. I think we're a little less extreme there than the kernel. Like I said, my preference is to leave Git as-is, but if somebody feels strongly, I don't think it would be that hard to leave core.gitproxy untouched here. I agree it doesn't scale, but my suspicion is that we're talking about an extremely small population here. IMHO we should be considering deprecating git:// entirely (from Git itself, and kernel.org should consider turning it off). In the v2 protocol, there's no advantage to using it over HTTP. > > But one option would be to limit it only to ssh, and not > > git:// proxies (we already don't do that half-duplex shutdown for raw > > TCP git://, for reasons discussed in that commit message). > > I wounder if it's possible to detect the situation, warn the user that > gitproxy has to be fixed and retry fetching pack without closing fd[1]. I don't think it can be easily distinguished from an actual network hangup (or proxy command failure, etc). I would much rather stop doing the close() entirely than add any kind of heuristic retry. -Peff
