Hi Junio, On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> If people think it might be useful to have it around to experiment, I > >> can resurrect and keep that in 'pu' (or rather 'jch'), as long as it > >> does not overlap and conflict with other topics in flight. Let me try > >> that in today's integration cycle. > > > > I would like to remind you of my suggestion to make this more publicly > > visible and substantially easier to play with, by adding it as an > > experimental feature (possibly guarded via an explicit opt-in config > > setting). > > I do not understand why you want to give this topic undue prominence > ovver any other random topic that cook in 'pu' [...] Since you ask so nicely for an explanation: clonebundles got a really lively and active discussion at the Contributors' Summit. So it is not your run of the mill typo fix, the bundle issue is something that clearly receives a lot of interest in particular from developers who are unfamiliar with the idiosynchracies of the code Git development. And I got the very distinct impression that Git would benefit a lot from these developers, *in particular* since they come with fresh perspectives. Now, we can make it hard for them (e.g. expecting them to sift through a few months' worth of What's Cooking mails, to find out whether there has been any related work, and what is the branch name, if any, and where to find that branch), and we can alternatively make it easy for them to help us make Git better. I would like us to choose the easier route for them. Because it would benefit us. Ciao, Johannes