> On 03 Aug 2016, at 19:45, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx writes: > >> packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n >> packet: git< version=2\n >> packet: git< capabilities=clean smudge\n > > During the discussion on the future of pack-protocol, it was pointed > out that having to shove all capabilities on a single line/packet > was one of the things we would want to fix in the current protocol > when we revamp to v2. As this exhange between the convert machinery > and an external process is a brand new one, I do not think you want > to mimic the limitation in the current pack protocol like this; the > limitation mostly came from the constraint that we cannot break > existing pack protocol clients and servers before we extended the > protocol to add capabilities. > > You may not foresee that the caps won't grow very long beyond > clean/smudge right now, just like we did not foresee that we would > wish to be able to convey a lot longer capability values to the > other side when we added the capability exchange to the pack > protocol, so "but but but we will never have that many" is not a > good counter-argument. OK. Is this the v2 discussion you are referring to? http://public-inbox.org/git/1461972887-22100-1-git-send-email-sbeller%40google.com/ What format do you suggest? packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n packet: git< version=2\n packet: git< capability=clean\n packet: git< capability=smudge\n packet: git< 0000 or packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n packet: git< version=2\n packet: git< capability\n packet: git< clean\n packet: git< smudge\n packet: git< 0000 or ... ? I would prefer the first one, I think. - Lars-- 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