Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] transport: add refspec list parameters to functions

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 27, 2016, 04:11 UTC
Message-ID: <20160427041138.GA22920@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYGi9bhRfGype7te4cGkxvnKww269kYoykB+76HNnTarg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:59:22PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> > Maybe we can do a mix of 2 and 4:
> >
> >    1) HTTP grows more extensions; other protocols stagnate for now.
> >    2) Come up with a backwards-incompatible protocol v2, foccussed on
> >        capabilities negotiation phase, hitting alternative end points
> >        (non http only, or rather a subset of protocols only)
> >     3) if HTTP sees the benefits of the native protocol v2, we may switch
> >         HTTP, too
> >
> > (in time order of execution. Each point is decoupled from the others and may
> > be done by different people at different times.)
> >
> 
> Today I rebased protocol-v2[1] and it was fewer conflicts than expected.
> I am surprised by myself that there is even a test case for v2 already,
> so I think it is more progressed that I had in mind. Maybe we can do 1)
> for now and hope that the non http catches up eventually?

If the plan is something like:

  1. v2 exists, but client/server don't know when they should use it.

  2. smart-http grows an extra parameter for the client to say "hey, I
     know v2"

  3. Other protocols get some manual v2 support (e.g., client asks for
     "upload-pack2" if instructed by the user, server either speaks v2
     then or says "eh, what?").

I like that very much. It lets us "cheat" on the hard part of the problem for http, which is what David's series is doing, but it provides a clear path forward for the protocols eventually reaching feature parity (namely that eventually all servers speak v2, and the client can start asking for v2 by default).

-Peff