Peijian Ju <eric.peijian@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [snip] >> Right, this commit in itself looks good. But I was curious why we need >> this, so I did a sneak peak into the following commits. >> >> To summarize, we want to call: >> `write_command_and_capabilities(..., "object-info");` >> in the upcoming patches to get the object-info details from the server. >> But isn't this function too specific to the "fetch" command to be >> generalized to be for "object-info" too? >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to add a custom function for 'object-info' in >> 'connect.c'? Like how we currently have `get_remote_bundle_uri()` for >> 'bundle-uri' and `get_remote_refs` for 'ls-refs'? > > Thank you. I am reading through the old comments left by Taylor > at https://lore.kernel.org/git/YkOPyc9tUfe2Tozx@nand.local/ > > " Makes obvious sense, and this was something that jumped out to me when I > looked at the first and second versions of this patch. I'm glad that > this is getting factored out." > > > It seems refactoring this into a more general function is on purpose. > It is encouraged to use this general function to request capability > rather than adding a custom function. > Taylor’s comment was 2 years ago, but I think refactoring this into a > more general function to > enforce DRY still makes sense. It would make sense then to move the existing users to also use `write_command_and_capabilities` eventually. I guess this could be done in a follow up series. Then I would say `write_command_and_capabilities()` should be moved to `transport.c`, no?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
