Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 28, 2015, 00:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPc5daXJ6s2oNvqSmtp5d-Dgm-EX6Mb8kY2nOLQVxAT-3wjAmQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kY6B4BLvLVS-J50SqCz+t9uGd93WHxCYKmRU1Ey3qVg+A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> I am _not_ proposing that we should go this route, at least not yet. >> I am merely pointing out that an in-place sidegrade from v1 to a >> protocol that avoids the megabyte-advertisement-at-the-beginning >> seems to be possible, as a food for thought. > > This is a fun thing indeed, though I'd personally feel uneasy with > such a probe as > a serious proposal. (Remember somebody 10 years from now wants to enjoy > reading the source code).
That cannot be a serious objection, once you realize that NUL + capability was exactly the same kind of "yes, we have a hole to allow up customize the protocol". The code to do so may not be pretty, but the code to implement ended up being reasonably clean with parse_feature_request() and friends. After all we live in a real world ;-)