[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MT response and update -p command

From: Larry Jones
Subject: Re: MT response and update -p command
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:31:06 -0500 (EST)

Milos Kleint writes [quoting me]:
> > 
> > This is historical.  Before CVS had the MT response, that is exactly
> > what happened to a final partial output line -- it was discarded.
> So the MT response is the fix to the the bug? :)

You could say that.  Although as I recall, the MT response was really
invented for a bunch of other reasons, it just so happened that it
provided an easy fix for this problem, too.

> Well, the 5.14 chapter says no word about MT being required.

It's not.  In general, if a client or server doesn't implement a
required command or response, other clients and servers won't be able to
talk to it at all.  If you don't implement MT, servers are perfectly
happy to talk to you and everything even works right except for this one
very rare case that gives you less than desirable results.

> That's why we
> decided not to implement, because we didn't find the 5.12 chapter quite
> clear and detailed and we thought that we can start with only M and E
> responses and that we can add MT later. 

What isn't clear?  A simple minimal implementation is to completely
ignore tags that start with + or -, to print a newline for the newline
tag, and to print the following text for any other tags.

-Larry Jones

I've never seen a sled catch fire before. -- Hobbes

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]