Stefan Xenos wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:43 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think it sounds better to just make it, in the header: >> >> x-evolve-pt content >> x-evolve-pt obsolete >> x-evolve-pt origin >> >> Where "pt = parent-type", we could of course spell that out too, but in >> this case it's "x-evolve-pt" is the exact same number of bytes as >> "parent-type", so nobody can object that it takes more space:) >> >> We'd then carry some documentation where we say everything except "x-*-" >> is reserved, and that we'd like to know about new "*" there before it's >> used, so it can be documented. [...] > that should > probably be the subject of a separate proposal (who owns the content > of a namespace, what is the process for adding a new namespace or a > new attribute within a namespace, what order should the header > attributes appear in, what problem is namespacing there to solve, when > do we use a namespaced attribute versus a "reserved" attribute, etc.). Agreed. There are reasons that I prefer not to go in this direction, but regardless, it would be the subject of a separate thread if you want to pursue it. >> Putting it in the commit message just sounds like a hack around not >> having namespaced headers. If we'd like to keep this then tools would >> need to parse both (potentially unpacking a lot of the commit message >> object, it can be quite big in some cases...). On the contrary: putting it in the commit message is a way to experiment with the workflow without changing the object format at all. I don't think we should underestimate the value of that ability. I don't understand what you're referring to by parsing both. Are you saying that if the experiment proves successful, we wouldn't be able to migrate completely to a new format? That sounds worrying to me --- I want the ability to experiment and to act on what we learn from an experiment, including when it touches on formats. Thanks, Jonathan
