Re: Request for detailed documentation of git pack protocol

>>> We have now proliferation of different (re)implementations of git:
>>> JGit in Java, Dulwich in Python, Grit in Ruby; and there are other
>>> planned: git# / managed git in C# (GSoC Mono project), ObjectiveGit
>>> in Objective-C (for iPhone IIRC).  At some time they would reach
>>> the point (or reached it already) of implementing git-daemon...
>>> but currently the documentation of git protocol is lacking.
>>
>> Well, lets see...

>> ObjectGit - Scott Chacon, again, a GitHub folk.  Though he has
>> expressed interest in moving to JGit or libgit2 where/when possible.
> 
> Actually, all of this work has moved to CocoaGit, which is much
> farther along than ObjectiveGit ever was.  Although I would love to
> use libgit2 when it gets that far, this was for Mac/iPhone native
> client work which JGit would not be helpful for.

> 
>>
>> Dulwich - off in its own world and not even trying to match basic
>> protocol rules by just watching what happens when you telnet to a
>> git port.  No clue how that's going to fair.
> 
> Oddly enough, I'm in Dulwich land too. I've been working on a
> Mercurial plugin that will provide a two way lossless bridge for Hg to
> be able to push and pull to/from a Git server.

> I've fixed some of the 
> issues I've found with the client side work and both pushes and pulls
> will work now. (I did turn off 'thin-pack' capability announcement,
> since you're correct that it simply was not properly implemented).
> 
> If we're going to round out the list, I've also worked on an
> ActionScript partial implementation, but it never got to the packfile
> level, and some of the Erlang guys are interested in writing at least
> a partial Erlang implementation too, which I may get involved in at
> some point.

> 
> It seems like if anyone would do what you're asking, it's probably me.
> In the next few weeks, I do what I can to fix up the remainder of the
> Dulwich code as part of my hg-git work.  I'm also working with Shawn
> on the Apress book, where I was going to try to document much of this
> information, perhaps I could try writing an RFC as an appendix or
> something - then that will force him to spend time correcting
> everything I got wrong :)  At least that might be a good starting
> point - I'm unfamiliar with the actual RFC process, so I'll research
> that a bit today.  I don't mind writing it, I think it would be really
> really useful to have, I just am unfamiliar with the process.