On 7/27/2017 1:25 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:42:38 +0000
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I looked at this and I like the direction it's going. It's pretty
simple and straightforward, which I also like.
ditto, simple is good!
Thanks.
What I'd recommend is that instead of making lazyObject a string, we
make it an integer representing a protocol version. We then add a
different config setting that is the actual program to invoke, using the
given protocol version. This lets us change the way we speak to the
tool without breaking backwards compatibility, and it also allows us to
simply check the lazyObject script for supported protocols up front.
That's possible too. As for version negotiation, I think we'll end up
using a protocol similar to the clean/smudge long-running process
protocol (as documented as gitattributes), so that does not need to be
taken care of here, but making lazyObject be the version integer is fine
too.
I was also thinking the way to retrieve the missing objects be a
versioned negotiation via the long-running process protocol.
That said, I'm a fan of including versions to make our life easier later
if we decide to adopt an entirely different model for retrieving the
missing objects.
