Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] protocol: introduce protocol extention mechanisms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Maybe I'm missing something Git-specific, but isn't the only thing that
> needs to be done now, to document/specify that 1) the client should send
> its list ordered by preference, 2) how preference is signalled, and 3)
> that the server gets to choose?

I think Simon's reminder of Stefan's was about specifying something
different from (1) above---it was just a list of good ones (as
opposed to ones to be avoided).  I was suggesting to tweak that to
match what you wrote above.

> Why would a server operator with only v0 and v1 at their disposal want
> to choose v0 instead of v1, considering that -- as far as I understand
> -- they are in fact the same?

Because we may later discover some reason we not yet know that makes
v$n+1 unsuitable after we introduce it, and we need to avoid it by
preferring v$n instead?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux