On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:59:22PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > Maybe we can do a mix of 2 and 4:
> >
> > 1) HTTP grows more extensions; other protocols stagnate for now.
> > 2) Come up with a backwards-incompatible protocol v2, foccussed on
> > capabilities negotiation phase, hitting alternative end points
> > (non http only, or rather a subset of protocols only)
> > 3) if HTTP sees the benefits of the native protocol v2, we may switch
> > HTTP, too
> >
> > (in time order of execution. Each point is decoupled from the others and may
> > be done by different people at different times.)
> >
>
> Today I rebased protocol-v2[1] and it was fewer conflicts than expected.
> I am surprised by myself that there is even a test case for v2 already,
> so I think it is more progressed that I had in mind. Maybe we can do 1)
> for now and hope that the non http catches up eventually?
If the plan is something like:
1. v2 exists, but client/server don't know when they should use it.
2. smart-http grows an extra parameter for the client to say "hey, I
know v2"
3. Other protocols get some manual v2 support (e.g., client asks for
"upload-pack2" if instructed by the user, server either speaks v2
then or says "eh, what?").
I like that very much. It lets us "cheat" on the hard part of the
problem for http, which is what David's series is doing, but it provides
a clear path forward for the protocols eventually reaching feature
parity (namely that eventually all servers speak v2, and the client can
start asking for v2 by default).
-Peff
--
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