# Re: [DRAFT] What's cooking in git.git

2 messages from 2020-04-28 to 2020-04-28. Participants: Son Luong Ngoc, Junio C Hamano.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/53335

## Son Luong Ngoc, 2020-04-28 05:10

Subject: Re: [DRAFT] What's cooking in git.git
Message-ID: <CAL3xRKdrATjL0+xUH9p8XtgXKd7tD+wCW-+TASJ8saVxBnJVZQ@mail.gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAL3xRKdrATjL0%2BxUH9p8XtgXKd7tD%2BwCW-%2BTASJ8saVxBnJVZQ%40mail.gmail.com

```
Hi,

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 06:17:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * jn/demote-proto2-from-default (2020-04-22) 1 commit
>   (merged to 'next' on 2020-04-22 at 1a5e0b221a)
>  + Revert "fetch: default to protocol version 2"
>
>  Those fetching over protocol v2 from linux-next and other kernel
>  repositories are reporting that v2 often fetches way too much than
>  needed.
>
>  Will merge to 'master'.
...
> * jt/v2-fetch-nego-fix (2020-04-27) 3 commits
>  - fetch-pack: in protocol v2, reset in_vain upon ACK
>  - fetch-pack: in protocol v2, in_vain only after ACK
>  - fetch-pack: return enum from process_acks()

Would it be ok to just proceed with the fix and skip the revert?
Or do we intend to revert 'jn/demote-proto2-from-default' after the
fix has landed into 'master'?

Cheers,
Son Luong.

```

## Junio C Hamano, 2020-04-28 17:07

Subject: Re: [DRAFT] What's cooking in git.git
Message-ID: <xmqqblnb4jz3.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqblnb4jz3.fsf%40gitster.c.googlers.com
In-Reply-To: <CAL3xRKdrATjL0+xUH9p8XtgXKd7tD+wCW-+TASJ8saVxBnJVZQ@mail.gmail.com>

```
Son Luong Ngoc <sluongng@gmail.com> writes:

>> * jt/v2-fetch-nego-fix (2020-04-27) 3 commits
>>  - fetch-pack: in protocol v2, reset in_vain upon ACK
>>  - fetch-pack: in protocol v2, in_vain only after ACK
>>  - fetch-pack: return enum from process_acks()
>
> Would it be ok to just proceed with the fix and skip the revert?
> Or do we intend to revert 'jn/demote-proto2-from-default' after the
> fix has landed into 'master'?

The demote patch hasn't even hit 'master'.  

My preference is to merge the demotion down to 'master' and 'maint'
while merging down this fix to 'next' and to 'master'.

And immediately revert the demotion on 'master', which will make the
tip of 'master' with v2 as the default, with "this" fix.

That way, those who want to help us polish the code further for the
next release would use v2 as default with the proposed fix for this
breakage and can hunt for other breakages in v2, while those on the
maintenance track (and v2.26.3 JNeider wants to see happen soon)
would revert to the original protocol as default.






```