Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Some patches for fsck for missing objects

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Jul 27, 2017, 17:25 UTC
Message-ID: <20170727102547.0c45a8db@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170726234238.2osugw2lheubmetw@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:42:38 +0000 "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:

> I looked at this and I like the direction it's going.  It's pretty
> simple and straightforward, which I also like.

Thanks.

Show 6 quoted lines

> What I'd recommend is that instead of making lazyObject a string, we
> make it an integer representing a protocol version.  We then add a
> different config setting that is the actual program to invoke, using the
> given protocol version.  This lets us change the way we speak to the
> tool without breaking backwards compatibility, and it also allows us to
> simply check the lazyObject script for supported protocols up front.

That's possible too. As for version negotiation, I think we'll end up using a protocol similar to the clean/smudge long-running process protocol (as documented as gitattributes), so that does not need to be taken care of here, but making lazyObject be the version integer is fine too.