Hi Junio, On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> While I think it would make it easier for people to experiment and > >> build on if the topic is merged to 'next', I am at the same time a > >> bit reluctant to merge an unproven new topic that introduces a new > >> file format, which we may end up having to support til the end of > >> time. It is likely that to support a "prime clone from CDN", it > >> would need a lot more than just "these are the heads and the pack > >> data is over there", so this may not be sufficient. > >> > >> Will discard. > > > > You could mark it as experimental, subject to change, and merge it to > > `next` safely. > > Are you planning, or do you know somebody who plans to use that code > soonish? I am too swamped with other things (most importantly, automate the identification of the as-of-recent-quite-frequent breakages reported by my build jobs). I know that one of my colleagues wanted to have a look at it, and so I thought that having it as an experimental feature that I could even integrate into Git for Windows for a wider audience could help justify alotting the time. > Otherwise I'd prefer to drop it---at this point, the series is merely > "just because we can", not "because we need it to further improve this > or that". Oh, I thought that this was meant as a starting point for anybody interested in playing with resumable clones or with easing server loads. In any case, I just wanted to be sure that you considered making it an experimental feature instead of dropping it. Just in case that you did not think of that as a possibility. Ciao, Dscho