Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:04:50 -0800

Duy Nguyen <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Stefan Beller <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> I can understand, that we maybe want to just provide one generic
>> "version 2" of the protocol which is an allrounder not doing bad in
>> all of these aspects, but I can see usecases of having the desire to
>> replace the wire protocol by your own implementation. To do so
>> we could try to offer an API which makes implementing a new
>> protocol somewhat easy. The current state of affairs is not providing
>> this flexibility.
>
> I think we are quite flexible after initial ref advertisement.

Yes, that is exactly where my "I am not convinced" comes from.

> After
> that point the client tells the server its capabilities and the server
> does the same for the client. Only shared features can be used. So if
> you want to add a new micro protocol for mobile, just add "mobile"
> capability to both client and server. A new implementation can support
> no capabililities and it should work fine with C Git (less efficient
> though, of course). And we have freedom to mix capabilities any way we
> want (it's harder to do when you have to follow v2, v2.1, v2.2...)