Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [snip] > +/* > + * Linked list for promisor remotes involved in the "promisor-remote" > + * protocol capability. > + * > + * 'fields' contains a defined set of field name/value pairs for > + * each promisor remote. Field names are stored in the 'string' > + * member, and values in the 'util' member. > + * > + * Currently supported field names: > + * - "name": The name of the promisor remote. > + * - "url": The URL of the promisor remote. > + * > + * Except for "name", each "<field_name>/<field_value>" pair should > + * correspond to a "remote.<name>.<field_name>" config variable set to > + * <field_value> where "<name>" is a promisor remote name. > + * > + * 'fields' should not be sorted, as we will rely on the order we put > + * things into it. So, for example, 'string_list_append()' should be > + * used instead of 'string_list_insert()'. > + */ > Dumb question: As I read through the patch, I realized we really care about the order of the fields and it is mentioned here too. Why is the order important? Shouldn't the client be satisfied as long as the required fields are present? Or is this merely an implementation issue where we simply parse the information in a specific order?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
