Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote: >> I can understand, that we maybe want to just provide one generic >> "version 2" of the protocol which is an allrounder not doing bad in >> all of these aspects, but I can see usecases of having the desire to >> replace the wire protocol by your own implementation. To do so >> we could try to offer an API which makes implementing a new >> protocol somewhat easy. The current state of affairs is not providing >> this flexibility. > > I think we are quite flexible after initial ref advertisement.
Yes, that is exactly where my "I am not convinced" comes from. > After > that point the client tells the server its capabilities and the server > does the same for the client. Only shared features can be used. So if > you want to add a new micro protocol for mobile, just add "mobile" > capability to both client and server. A new implementation can support > no capabililities and it should work fine with C Git (less efficient > though, of course). And we have freedom to mix capabilities any way we > want (it's harder to do when you have to follow v2, v2.1, v2.2...) -- 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
