From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Signed push Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:57:56 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1408485987-3590-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20140820011935.GC3104@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Git Mailing List To: Nico Williams X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 20 07:58:41 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XJyuu-0003Ef-0i for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 07:58:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752020AbaHTF6Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:58:24 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]:56414 "EHLO mail-la0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750984AbaHTF6S (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 01:58:18 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hz20so6870243lab.36 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:58:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=tc7MGAUv5OJHCOp10F33PYSZTFwKTm2vHrpz2TLldbU=; b=TWhnX6KBwFd6dDAoRgNXtMtt1bxNmIVFm9lHDPMQIrVdw3os6wr3IG8dVfqVdMQba6 GtlKzj0+yzRjqZpdjWHvKoqoKRga6CzBfZ1g3rmFFxRFIJOumPwMyruHE7OUIcPobqBB 2TIXkUG7cP/MPyEdjCDK8H93SlKjJVjBk/8F5n8Ag8HTB7IEEdBTU/Ln5dxTRW27Zrbt Y6aYDwGQMq2o+JNgkkAkJonLEhzemkQdXLt9zJqmVS+rKBI4GpdUAagDWUpkJlZJZdCD rDZHFuKo8OwW+QOCU4rDUxjS5WU/WT/88S/pbD5mp9qxqKI0sI+aXqkiRBIuGDYp+2cw 1vOA== X-Received: by 10.152.28.134 with SMTP id b6mr26459812lah.33.1408514296747; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.97.177 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:57:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: xc_WTC5rvho1Q_UXAcgbJMftBh8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sorry, but I cannot answer, as the only thing that I recall when > I hear "branch object" was that I heard the phrase used but > without much substance. Just to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, by the above, especially the "without much substance" part, I do not mean that those without code have no say in the way the project improves its product. It is true that this project does not operate in such a way that visionaries throw ideas for coding minions to implement. A person with an itch and idea on how to scratch that itch is expected to lead the design and code, possibly with help from others. But in order to ask others evaluate and join force to help with the design and make it real with code, you need to present your idea to sufficient level of detail to be actionable. By "actionable", consider the level of detail in which the proposed log message (not code or documentation update) of PATCH 15/18. Even though the message alone does not give any working code, or it does not even spell out the byte-level detail of how the protocol messages look like, people should be able to read enough details such as what kind of information a push certificate is to contain, when a certificate is created, how it is transferred, when and by whom it is received, how it will be used by the receiver, how a server operator can tweak his or her system to make use of the information, and how the newly added system component would fit into the existing system. In other words, the description should be sufficient to assess both how useful the end result would be, how much new work needs to be done to get there, and how well the resulting system as a whole would fit together well. I went back to the old thread to re-read the mention of "branch object", but I did not get an impression that the idea was presented to the actionable level of detail; at least not yet.