From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:06:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] repo-settings: fix checking for fetch.negotiationAlgorithm=default
Message-ID: <xmqq5ypzimr3.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <220131.864k5jbo5h.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

>> Sounds good to me.  I'm not very creative, so I think I'd just use
>> "non-skipping" as the new name.
>
> I can't think of a better one either (aside from my already-suggested
> "exhaustive"), but that's naming it in terms of the only other
> negotiator.

Skipping and the other one are both commit graph walkers.  The
traditional one reports each and every commit without skipping, so
if the negation in "non-skipping" turns out to be problematic in
naming, perhaps we can say "consecutive" vs "skipping" as the
differentiator between the two?

> E.g. if we were to make one called "smart-topology" or something (would
> skip sending some OIDs by assuming things about branch/tag topology,
> i.e. if you have X that probably includes Y) having negotiators "A",
> "non-A", and "C" would be odd :)

It is good to anticipate that somebody cleverly invents negotiator
that is not based on "commit walker" concept ;-)