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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 6, 2017, 12:09 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqr2ugv5om.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSrWekXdzqzhL3Lk37YOGPHUdKCDU85t3hJgqK7PSVBZ_g@mail.gmail.com>

Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes:

> Maybe I'm missing something Git-specific, but isn't the only thing that
> needs to be done now, to document/specify that 1) the client should send
> its list ordered by preference, 2) how preference is signalled, and 3)
> that the server gets to choose?

I think Simon's reminder of Stefan's was about specifying something different from (1) above---it was just a list of good ones (as opposed to ones to be avoided). I was suggesting to tweak that to match what you wrote above.

> Why would a server operator with only v0 and v1 at their disposal want
> to choose v0 instead of v1, considering that -- as far as I understand
> -- they are in fact the same?

Because we may later discover some reason we not yet know that makes v$n+1 unsuitable after we introduce it, and we need to avoid it by preferring v$n instead?