On 03/16/2017 02:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Yeah, the example was solely to see how the system was to be
extended, as one of the selling point of the proposal was:
> === Endpoint support for forward compatibility
>
> This "server" endpoint requires that the first line be understood, but
> will ignore any other lines starting with words that it does not
> understand. This allows new "commands" to be added (distinguished by
> their first lines) and existing commands to be "upgraded" with
> backwards compatibility.
<snip>
And the lack of "capability negotiation" is substituted by "assume
the better server, fallback to lower common denominator by detecting
errors"?
Yes. I probably should have mentioned that this "forward compatibility"
is limited - it does not include any potential new feature intending to
reduce the size of the request. I was thinking more of this being able
to be extended to, for example, add "hint" lines that certain blobs come
from certain commits, or add "have" lines to present blobs that might be
good delta bases (and even if the server doesn't understand these lines,
its output is still correct).