Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 2/3] archive: implement protocol v2 archive command

On Wed, Sep 12 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:36 PM Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +                */
>> +               status = packet_reader_read(&reader);
>> +       }
>> +       if (status != PACKET_READ_DELIM)
>> +               die(_("upload-archive: expected delim packet"));
> This is upload-archive, which is a low level plumbing command
> (see the main man page of git for an explanation of that category),
> so we do not translate the error/die() calls. Besides, this is executed
> on the server, which might have a different locale than the requesting
> client?
> Would asking for a setlocale() on the server side be an unreasonable
> feature request for the capabilities (in a follow up patch, and then not
> just for archive but also fetch/push, etc.)?

This would be very nice to have, but as you suggest in some follow-up

I think though that instead of doing setlocale() it would be better to
pass some flag saying we're operating in a machine-readable mode, and
then we'd (as part of the protocol defintion) say we're going to emit

Advantages of doing that over a server-side setlocale():

 1) Purely for translation purposes, users can update to a newer client
    to get new translations, even though they're talking to an old

 2) Again, only for translation purposes, servers may not have the
    appropriate locales generated and/or linked to libgettext.

 3) Ditto, some clients that aren't git.git may want/need to emit
    different translation messages to their consumers than what we have,
    think some GUI client / Emacs magit etc. whose UI is different from

 4) Aside from translation purposes, getting a machine-readable
    "push/pull" etc. mode would be very handy. E.g. now you need to
    parse stderr to see why exactly your push failed (hook denied, or
    non-fast-forward, or non-fast-forward where there was a lock race
    condition? ...).

I also wonder if something like #4 wouldn't compliment something like
the proposed structured logging[1]. I.e. even though we'd like to run
git.git, and present exactly the message to the user we do now, we might
want to run in such a machine-readable mode under the hood when talking
to the server so we can log exactly how the push went / how it failed
for the purposes of aggregation.

1. https://public-inbox.org/git/20180713165621.52017-2-git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/