Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> This is implemented for protocol v0, v1, and v2.
>>
>> Is that different to say "for all protocols"? I am wondering if it
>> is worth saying (unlike in a hypothetical case where we do not
>> support v0 and v1 we may want to state why we only support v2).
>
> I wrote it that way to avoid confusion with things like HTTP (which is a
> protocol, at least in its name). Maybe better would be "This is
> implemented for all protocols (v0, v1, and v2)".
I still wonder if it is better left unsaid. When adding a new
thing, it would not be noteworthy if the new thing is available no
matter what protocol is being used, no?
>> >> + trace2_data_string("fetch", the_repository, "fetch/effective-filter", spec);
>> >> packet_buf_write(&req_buf, "filter %s", spec);
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + trace2_data_string("fetch", the_repository, "fetch/effective-filter", "none");
>>
>> Do we show "none" anywhere else where an expanded list objects
>> filter spec is expected?
>
> Hmm...no, we don't.
>
>> I am wondering two things:
>>
>> - The lack of this line would be a cleaner implementation of a
>> signal to say "this client did not ask any filtering".
>
> I think the presence is important to distinguish "no filtering" versus
> someone using an old Git version that does not emit such traces, but I'm
> open to changing the "none" to "none-specified" or something like that.
OK.
>> - It would be good if we keep what report here more-or-less the
>> same as what we can pass "--filter=" on the command line of
>> "git pack-objects".
>
> My intent is to report what is being sent to the server in the fetch
> request.
Then I'd be OK with a design that reports "none", if we send "none"
to the server in this case. If not, then I do not think we should.
Perhaps report an empty string or not reporting at all? After all,
the reader knows the client version and capability in the log so it
is easy to tell between 'no filter was used' and 'too old to report
the filter', no? I dunno.
