Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Not about this patch, but I wonder if an organization along the
>> following lines would make sense?
>>
>> 1. Rename pack-protocol.txt to protocol-v1.txt. Rename
>> protocol-v2.txt to pack-protocol.txt.
>>
>> 2. Make pack-protocol.txt self-contained, and remove any redundant
>> sections from protocol-v1.txt.
>>
>> 3. Add a new protocol-v2.txt that briefly describes the benefits and
>> highlights of protocol v2, referring to pack-protocol.txt for
>> details.
>>
>> That way, newcomers of the future could read pack-protocol.txt and
>> quickly glean the main protocol in (then) current use.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I dislike the idea of renaming protocol-v2.txt to pack-protocol.txt. I
> agree that we should probably have protocol-v1 broken out into its own
> file, taking the parts from pack-protocol.txt, but what really should
> happen is that pack-protocol.txt could describe the basics of the wire
> protocol (pkt-lines, the format of the various transports, etc) and then
> refer to the protocol-v{1,2}.txt documents themselves.
WRT the naming, are we happy with the idea of (1) pretending that
when we say 'protocol', there is nothing but the on-the-wire
pkt-line protocol (i.e. that is why we call "protocol-v2" without
giving any other adjective---are we sure we won't have need for any
other kind of protocol?) and (2) tying the "pack" ness to the name of
on-the-wire pkt-line protocol (i.e. that is where the name of the
original pack-protocol.txt came from, as it started only for the
packfile transfer---are we happy to keep newer protocols tied to
"pack" the same way)?
