Re: [PATCH] pack-protocol: mention and point to docs for protocol v2

> Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:
> 
> >> Not about this patch, but I wonder if an organization along the
> >> following lines would make sense?
> >> 
> >>  1. Rename pack-protocol.txt to protocol-v1.txt.  Rename
> >>     protocol-v2.txt to pack-protocol.txt.
> >> 
> >>  2. Make pack-protocol.txt self-contained, and remove any redundant
> >>     sections from protocol-v1.txt.
> >> 
> >>  3. Add a new protocol-v2.txt that briefly describes the benefits and
> >>     highlights of protocol v2, referring to pack-protocol.txt for
> >>     details.
> >> 
> >> That way, newcomers of the future could read pack-protocol.txt and
> >> quickly glean the main protocol in (then) current use.
> >> 
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > I dislike the idea of renaming protocol-v2.txt to pack-protocol.txt.  I
> > agree that we should probably have protocol-v1 broken out into its own
> > file, taking the parts from pack-protocol.txt, but what really should
> > happen is that pack-protocol.txt could describe the basics of the wire
> > protocol (pkt-lines, the format of the various transports, etc) and then
> > refer to the protocol-v{1,2}.txt documents themselves.
> 
> WRT the naming, are we happy with the idea of (1) pretending that
> when we say 'protocol', there is nothing but the on-the-wire
> pkt-line protocol (i.e. that is why we call "protocol-v2" without
> giving any other adjective---are we sure we won't have need for any
> other kind of protocol?) and (2) tying the "pack" ness to the name of
> on-the-wire pkt-line protocol (i.e. that is where the name of the
> original pack-protocol.txt came from, as it started only for the
> packfile transfer---are we happy to keep newer protocols tied to
> "pack" the same way)?