Jon Loeliger <jdl@xxxxxxx> writes: > So, like, David Bainbridge said: >> Hi, >> >> The subject matter of the conference looks really interesting but I am >> unlikely to be able to attend, unfortunately. >> >> The subjects being covered like the current State of Git and the >> Future of Git, for example, deserve much wider exposure, and I would >> certainly appreciate hearing the thoughts of Junio and others. > > Indeed. You do not need to go to NM to _hear_ that. Basically, I want us not to have "big" plans that come from the top. Now, you heard it ;-) There are areas that we as Git community would want to address for some audience that were discovered over the years, and that "some audience" might even be a large population of Git users, but if that does not have overlap with Kernel Plumbers, the Plumbers mini-conf may not be a suitable venue for even mentioning them. E.g. the enhancement of the submodule subsystem to allow more end-user facing commands to recurse into them; rearchitecting the index and redoing the "sparse checkout" hack so that we can do narrow clones more properly; supporting "huge objects" better in the object layer, without having to resort to ugly hacks like GitLFS that will never be part of the core Git. These things may all be worth talking about in wider Git setting, but some of them may be waste of time to bring up in the Plumbers' venue. The future of Git is shaped largely by end-user itches. From my point of view, Git people are going there primarily to find what Kernel Plubmbers' itches are, and help assessing the workflow improvements around Git the Plumbers are wishing for or designing themselves by being there, because we are at the best position to tell what kind of enhancement to Git is feasible and what is unlikely to happen in the near term.