From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B181FC43 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751984AbdJFMJc (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:09:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51411 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751901AbdJFMJb (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:09:31 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426E8A1AD1; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:09:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=VQA/lY0WgUfp Hpmno/lKkjWrqdw=; b=nox9oBPdCdK06XxvJhyne6bThN4REaO5ZXUYIC/Hi1Wc pCDOJhwOdPrKt7CiUg+Q+N7VMGoqu3HBqEQa6jUEJfJZLHUO3MgGuIINxde+gURO 5XuDxf5FFPPLmQW+sZRwXXrQ1D3LuIsoEKrFPsmyfKzG8+UewwC/6nmD6MacNoU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=De1OJY Z3K8zr9/5uO95tPdWk6Q4QG2qc6w1H4eadYNjeSHs2vIoda/xZ1cZZ1Da1lBMDnq 5z6ZbDzIcIXtUx3jYhd/5NeNC9vF8YQyBDy95S9HHza3pGnRnKOtyrdYqJFi7a+4 SDf55egcc7buJeGZxPV1w+d4jQxJNMMGxgvI4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A13A1AD0; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A0AAA1ACF; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:09:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Cc: Simon Ruderich , Brandon Williams , Git Mailing List , bturner@atlassian.com, Jeff Hostetler , jonathantanmy@google.com, Jonathan Nieder , Jeff King , Stefan Beller Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] protocol: introduce protocol extention mechanisms References: <20170926235627.79606-1-bmwill@google.com> <20171003201507.3589-1-bmwill@google.com> <20171003201507.3589-4-bmwill@google.com> <20171006090907.gbsgygulzj3bgqrg@ruderich.org> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:09:29 +0900 In-Reply-To: ("Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren=22's?= message of "Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:11:50 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 35177E94-AA8F-11E7-8CB8-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Martin =C3=85gren 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 sen= d > 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?