Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

My recollection is that the consensus from the last time we
discussed protocol revamping was to list one capability per packet
so that packet length limit does not matter, but you may want to
check with the list archive yourself.

I couldn't find that consensus mail, but this one [1] is good enough
evidence that we can hit packet length limit in capability line
easily.

With an escape hatch to allow maximum packet length up to  uint_max, I
think we'll be fine for a long time even if we don't send one cap per
pkt-line. So I'm trying to see if we really want to go with one cap
per pkt-line..

Pros:

 - better memory management, current pkt-line static buffer is probably fine
 - a capability can contain spaces after '='

Cons:

 - some refactoring needed to hide away differences between v1 and v2

Looks like one cap per pkt-line is winning..

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/237929
-- 
Duy