Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] protocol: introduce protocol extention mechanisms

> Hi,
> 
> Brandon Williams wrote:
> 
> > Given some of this discussion though, maybe we want to change the
> > semantics of 'protocol.version' so that both servers and clients respect
> > it.  As of right now, these patches have the server always allow
> > protocol v0 and v1?  Though that doesn't do much right now since v1 is
> > the same as v0.
> 
> I strongly prefer not to do that.
> 
> If we want to make the advertised protocol versions on the server side
> configurable, I think it should be independent from the configuration
> for protocol versions to use on the client side.  Rationale:
> 
>  - As a client-side user, I may want to (after reporting the bug, of
>    course!) blacklist certain protocol versions to work around server
>    bugs.  But this should not affect my behavior as a server --- in
>    my role as a server, these server-side bugs have no effect on me.
> 
>  - As a server operator, I may want to (after reporting the bug, of
>    course!) blacklist certain protocol versions to work around client
>    bugs.  But this should not affect my behavior as a client --- in my
>    role as a client, these client-side bugs have no effect on me.
> 
> Making the client-side case configurable seems important since Git is
> widely used in environments where it may not be easy to control the
> deployed version (so having configuration as an escape hatch is
> important).
> 
> Making the server-side case configurable seems less important since
> Git server operators usually have tight control over the deployed Git
> version and can apply a targetted fix or workaround.