Re: [PATCH 3/7] pack-protocol.txt: Mark all LFs in push-cert as required

Dave Borowitz [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Dave Borowitz [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Another way of looking at the problem with my assumptions is, I was
assuming "pkt-line framing" was the same thing as "pkt-line header".
You seem to be saying the definition of "pkt-line framing" is "header,
and optional trailing newline".

Yes.  I thought that was what "Server SHOULD terminate with LF;
client MUST NOT require it" in the existing text meant.

Unfortunately, the existing text is littered with examples of
"PKT-LINE(foo SP bar LF)". If we assume "PKT-LINE(...)" means "apply
pkt-line framing to the [...]", then this strongly implies that
"pkt-line framing" does _not_ include the trailing LF. (Or the logical
but bizarre alternative reading that such an example might have _two_
trailing LFs :)

Yes,  But I never viewed PKT-LINE() as an element that strictly
defines the grammar of the packet protocol ;-)

By clarifying that "sender SHOULD terminate with LF, receiver MUST
NOT require it" is the rule (and fixing the existing implementations
at places where they violate the "MUST NOT" part, which I think are
very small number of places), I think we can drop these LF (or LF?
for that matter) from all of the PKT-LINE() in the construction in
the pack-protocol.txt, which would be a very good thing to do.

The example in your sentence will become PKT-LINE(foo SP bar) and
the "there may be an LF at the end" would only be at one place, as a
part of the definition of PKT-LINE().