From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] protocol v2 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:33:00 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1424747562-5446-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 28 01:33:27 2015 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 1YRVLR-0004Ku-Ub for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:33:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751152AbbB1AdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:33:21 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]:33747 "EHLO mail-oi0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750752AbbB1AdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:33:21 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z81so18552371oif.2 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:33:20 -0800 (PST) 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=/wlGtVDE34qYd7aNGnR6WR7l1ruIxZkZNpgbudPWnmA=; b=rJIMNB4hLQXiUCHyP9FhD7CBUoAm1a2QD1SEAwMOGlLypmsIHocXlXqEjamRvbRwMl b1wllOUjxsvxOBgTversaniHVOb4U+2FL4rwKgI/zhWccp24/l56fFq6UHpdd6HfA5Pa uRyMZKEnEZ8ioX548Ht3Hkpkds6vrV+LDtUpLYJz1SkR3RWBR/hu1W+6lrhvXiIx28tf Ou1q03/gwa3qqOz3DOnPCInEbZcCS5scR5XKgImZ8Dd+BwLG81QylWv2v/wNy7jBar4N yUmLug6qGFX5dbMTFMRbZHe/sqq3jxRzYLZjLpD3YrNog+lomS4j0JFWYKgjq9Yo9L4E ej8Q== X-Received: by 10.202.219.215 with SMTP id s206mr11142871oig.114.1425083600667; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:33:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.48.132 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:33:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3O8vS5bXY_yUNMw8DVmVpt8W3Rw Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> I am _not_ proposing that we should go this route, at least not yet. >> I am merely pointing out that an in-place sidegrade from v1 to a >> protocol that avoids the megabyte-advertisement-at-the-beginning >> seems to be possible, as a food for thought. > > This is a fun thing indeed, though I'd personally feel uneasy with > such a probe as > a serious proposal. (Remember somebody 10 years from now wants to enjoy > reading the source code). That cannot be a serious objection, once you realize that NUL + capability was exactly the same kind of "yes, we have a hole to allow up customize the protocol". The code to do so may not be pretty, but the code to implement ended up being reasonably clean with parse_feature_request() and friends. After all we live in a real world ;-)