On Thu, 14 May 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > I was afraid of this: that the people who know pack protocol good > > enough to be able to write it down are otherwise busy. But we get > > detailed / updated packfile and pack index format descriptions some > > time ago (thanks all that contributed to it!). I hope that the same > > would happen with pack _protocol_ description. > > If someone with the wish for such a document volunteers to work on it > then I'm sure people with fuller knowledge will review and comment on > the result as appropriate. Well, but still somebody with time and at least some expertise in the area would be required to start it. > > I was hoping of document in RFC format; dreaming about having it > > submitted to IETF as (at least) unofficial RFC like Atom Publication > > Protocol (or is it proper RFC these days?), and then accepted like > > HTTP protocol. > > I think we'd have to move to a new version of the protocol for that. > The current protocol, even if it does the job, is not particularly > elegant. Are all RFC (including proposals / informational RFCs) defined protocols elegant? Well... perhaps they are. The quality of IETF standards is way higher than, say, ECMA :-) But I accept that having RFC to be on the list of 'official' RFCs, even as an "experimental" RFC is just a dream. Nevertheless I think that following RFC format, which includes using a common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC 2119), Augmented Backus–Naur Form (ABNF) (as defined by RFC 5234) as a metalanguage, would be a good idea for technical / protocol documentation. -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html