Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2026, #10)

"Pablo Sabater" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.git
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 2:33 AM CEST, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Pablo Sabater" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Thu Jul 23, 2026 at 4:38 AM CEST, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>
>>> * ps/cat-file-remote-object-info (2026-07-18) 13 commits
>>>  - cat-file: make remote-object-info allow-list adapt to the server
>>>  - cat-file: add remote-object-info to batch-command
>>>  - transport: add client support for object-info
>>>  - serve: advertise object-info feature
>>>  - protocol-caps: check object existence regardless of the attributes requested
>>>  - fetch-pack: move fetch initialization
>>>  - connect: make write_fetch_command_and_capabilities() more generic
>>>  - fetch-pack: move write_fetch_command_and_capabilities() to connect.c
>>>  - fetch-pack: use unsigned int for hash_algo variable
>>>  - fetch-pack: drop the static advertise_sid variable
>>>  - t1006: extract helper functions into new 'lib-cat-file.sh'
>>>  - cat-file: declare loop counter inside for()
>>>  - transport-helper: fix memory leak of helper on disconnect
>>>
>>>  The 'remote-object-info' command has been added to 'git cat-file
>>>  --batch-command', allowing clients to request object metadata
>>>  (currently size) from a remote server via protocol v2 without
>>>  downloading the entire object.  Format placeholders are dynamically
>>>  filtered on the client based on server-advertised capabilities,
>>>  returning empty strings for inapplicable or unsupported fields.
>>>
>>>  Needs review.
>>>  source: <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Karthik reviewed it a few days ago [1] and it looked good to him. Two tiny
>> nits came up, which don't seem worth a reroll on their own.
>>
>> I think the series is good unless further issues come up.
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLa=ZS8J4t12ab1=3-LRYNuZOwqSHG861iYm97JjF3mGprvJA@mail.gmail.com/
>
> I was silently hoping that you would fix these two nits, saying that
> one of the alone might not warrant reroll but if we have multiple,
> we would better get them right for the final version, or something
> ;-)

I'll fix them right now :)

Thanks
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.