Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> I can understand, that we maybe want to just provide one generic
>> "version 2" of the protocol which is an allrounder not doing bad in
>> all of these aspects, but I can see usecases of having the desire to
>> replace the wire protocol by your own implementation. To do so
>> we could try to offer an API which makes implementing a new
>> protocol somewhat easy. The current state of affairs is not providing
>> this flexibility.
>
> I think we are quite flexible after initial ref advertisement.
Yes, that is exactly where my "I am not convinced" comes from.
Show 8 quoted lines
> After
> that point the client tells the server its capabilities and the server
> does the same for the client. Only shared features can be used. So if
> you want to add a new micro protocol for mobile, just add "mobile"
> capability to both client and server. A new implementation can support
> no capabililities and it should work fine with C Git (less efficient
> though, of course). And we have freedom to mix capabilities any way we
> want (it's harder to do when you have to follow v2, v2.1, v2.2...)
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>