Subject: Re: [PATCH] protocol upload-pack-v2

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 07:45:54 -0700

Duy Nguyen <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> This is a follow-up on $gmane/264553, which is a continuation of
>> $gmane/264000, but instead of giving two required readings to
>> readers, I'll start with reproduction of the two, and add a few more
>> things the current protocol lacks that I would want to see in the
>> updated protocol.
>
> I think the important thing to get v2 started is making sure we do not
> need v3 to get rid of any of these limitations. In other words v2
> should be extensible enough to implement them later.

Yes.

>>    ...
>
> I don't have an answer to this one. So the reaction is,...
> "broken" (in pratice, not in theory), don't touch it. I know I'm
> burying my head in the sand..
>    ...
> Introducing the ref exchange in push-pack could be done in an
> extension too, I think.

Thanks, but you do not have to "solve" these sample issues here.  As
you said above, your primary goal at this stage is to make sure v2
is extensible to cover future needs, and in order to do so, you need
to make sure "what's lacking" list is fairly complete.  You are not
helping from that point of view.

I'd like to see a new protocol that lets us overcome the limitations
(did I miss others? I am sure people can help here) sometime this
year.