Brandon Williams wrote: > If so I suggest we move away from the term "pack" protocol. Mostly > because maybe at some future date we don't only want to communicate to > transfer packs. So at the risk of bikeshedding (and because naming is > hard) I think we should begin talking about the over the wire protocol > as just that, the "wire protocol" or if we need to be more explicit the > "git wire protocol". Thoughts? Sounds fine to me. <bikeshed>You can call it Documentation/technical/git-protocol.txt, since from the context it's clear that this is going over the wire.</bikeshed> The main point of what Junio said is that it means the docs should treat "git upload-archive" instead same way as "git upload-pack" and "git receive-pack", instead of artifically separating the archive file-oriented and the pack-oriented parts of the protocol. Thanks, Jonathan
