Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #09; Tue, 29)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 6, 2014, 19:34 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsiomem5t.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140506080749.GD23935@serenity.lan>

John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:50:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> ...
>> At the same
>> time, however, the interface the remote helpers use to talk to Git
>> has not been as stable as you seem to think, I am afraid.  For
>> example, a recent remote-hg/bzr series needed some enhancements to
>> fast-import to achieve the feature parity with native transports by
>> adding a missing feature or two on the Git side.
>
> This doesn't qualify as an unstable interface for me.

That is true, but that does not change the equation very much, no? To a remote-helper maintainer, bundled is easier to maintain than unbundled, because both sides are changing, and regardless of the nature of the change, s/he would know how the Git side looks like if bundled.

Having said that, I agree with the conclusion of your message:

> There is a different level of urgency between "you cannot use this new
> feature until you update Git" and "if you update Mercurial then the
> remote helper will stop working", and that's why I think the remote
> helpers may benefit from a separate release schedule.

and I am inclined to be persuaded that the users of remote-hg/bzr may better off if they are unbundled from my tree.