On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> If we instead introduced "no-thin", it is more like:
>   1. Receive-pack starts advertising "no-thin" (as dictated by
>      circumstances, as Carlos describes).
>   2. Send-pack which does not understand no-thin will ignore it and send
>      a thin pack. This is the same as now, and the same as step 2 above.
>   3. An upgraded send-pack will understand no-thin and do as the server
>      asks.
> So an upgraded client and server can start cooperating immediately, and
> we do not have to wait for the long assumption time to pass before
> applying the second half.
> It is tempting to think about a "thin" flag because that would be the
> natural way to have implemented it from the very beginning. But it is
> not the beginning, and the negative flag is the only way at this point
> to say "if you understand this, please behave differently than we used
> to" (because the status quo is "send a thin pack, whether I said it was
> OK or not").

I think the only sane option at this point is a "no-thin" flag, or
just require servers that want to be wire compatible to accept thin
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to