Re: Git clonebundles

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 7, 2017, 20:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzihxyb66.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702071303370.3496@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

>> If people think it might be useful to have it around to experiment, I
>> can resurrect and keep that in 'pu' (or rather 'jch'), as long as it
>> does not overlap and conflict with other topics in flight.  Let me try
>> that in today's integration cycle.
>
> I would like to remind you of my suggestion to make this more publicly
> visible and substantially easier to play with, by adding it as an
> experimental feature (possibly guarded via an explicit opt-in config
> setting).

I do not understand why you want to give this topic undue prominence ovver any other random topic that cook in 'pu' and later merged down to 'next' and then 'master' only after they turn out to be useful (or at least harmless).

If there were somebody who is the champion of that topic, advocating that any clone-bundle solution must be based on this topic, it would be different. Even though I am not opposed to the topic myself, I am not that somebody. That is why I kept it around to wait to see if somebody finds it potentially useful and then discarded it after seeing no such person stepped up.

That champion of the topic would spend the necessaly engineering effort to document it as experimental, to make sure that there is a reasonable upgrade/transition route if the "v3" format turns out to be not very useful, etc. by rerolling the patches or following-up on them to advance it from 'pu' down to 'next' and to 'master' just like any other topic.

Judging from the tone of his message (i.e. "unfortunately" in it), Christian may want to be one, or somebody else may want to be one.