Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] Cloning with remote unborn HEAD

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:15:12 +0100

On Fri, Feb 05 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Tan <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> For what it's worth, here's v7 with advertise/allow/ignore and by
>> default, advertise. I think that some server operators will have use for
>> this feature, and people who want to disable it for whatever reason can
>> still do so. The main disadvantage is complexity - the server knob that
>> server administrators will need to control (but between a simpler
>> allow/ignore knob and a more complicated advertise/allow/ignore knob, I
>> think we might as well go for the slightly more complex one) and
>> complexity in the code (but now that is constrained to one function and
>> a few global variables).
>>
>> As you can see from the range-diff, not much has changed from v6.
>>
>> I've also included Junio's suggestion of tightening the promise made by
>> the server (when the client says "unborn").
>
> This looks reasonable overall, especially with the feature turned on
> by default, we'd hopefully get reasonable exposure from the get-go.
>
> Let's mark the topic to be merged to 'next' soonish, unless people
> object.

FWIW I'm still unclear on re [1] whether Jonathan thinks the semantics
of this shouldn't be documented for <reasons>, or whether he just
doesn't want to submit the patch and I should, or something else.

I still think this "remote as config source" without actually explaining
that it is is a very glaring hole in the docs[2].

And in [3] I noted that we introduced the word "branches" into
protocol-v2.txt for the first time without defining what it means
(presumably just refs/heads/*, but then let's say so...). There was a
reply promising clarification, but I note that v7 still just says
"branches".

To be clear I'm perfectly fine with a note in a CL to the effect of "had
X feedback on last version, Ævar said Y and Z both of which I think are
stupid ideas, so I'm not doing them" :)

The only thing I mind is being left hanging to the effect of not knowing
if a diff you proposed is considered bad by the primary author, or if I
should just submit it myself as a patch on top or whatever.

It also saves other people following along with reviews time, since they
can read later cover letters and get a brief summary of some
side-discussion in an earlier round without diving into it themselves.

Me too honestly, sometimes I come back to these threads and completely
forgot what I had to say in earlier rounds, and when I try to find out
it's hit-and-miss whether I agree with much/any of it :)

1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/
3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/