Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2016, #02; Mon, 12)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Dec 19, 2016, 10:49 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612191145080.54750@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqinqn6c41.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >>  While I think it would make it easier for people to experiment and
> >>  build on if the topic is merged to 'next', I am at the same time a
> >>  bit reluctant to merge an unproven new topic that introduces a new
> >>  file format, which we may end up having to support til the end of
> >>  time.  It is likely that to support a "prime clone from CDN", it
> >>  would need a lot more than just "these are the heads and the pack
> >>  data is over there", so this may not be sufficient.
> >> 
> >>  Will discard.
> >
> > You could mark it as experimental, subject to change, and merge it to
> > `next` safely.
> 
> Are you planning, or do you know somebody who plans to use that code
> soonish?

I am too swamped with other things (most importantly, automate the identification of the as-of-recent-quite-frequent breakages reported by my build jobs).

I know that one of my colleagues wanted to have a look at it, and so I thought that having it as an experimental feature that I could even integrate into Git for Windows for a wider audience could help justify alotting the time.

> Otherwise I'd prefer to drop it---at this point, the series is merely
> "just because we can", not "because we need it to further improve this
> or that".

Oh, I thought that this was meant as a starting point for anybody interested in playing with resumable clones or with easing server loads.

In any case, I just wanted to be sure that you considered making it an experimental feature instead of dropping it. Just in case that you did not think of that as a possibility.

Ciao, Dscho