Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> The protocol version change was painful for users that fetch in the
>> same repo from linux-next and other linux remotes[5]. The problem has
>> been isolated and fixed, so we could either apply the revert or apply
>> the fixes[6].
>
> The demote patch hasn't even hit 'master'.
>
> My preference is to merge the demotion down to 'master' and 'maint'
> while merging down this fix to 'next' and to 'master'.
>
> And immediately revert the demotion on 'master', which will make the
> tip of 'master' with v2 as the default, with "this" fix.
Yes, sounds good to me.
By the way, the diagnosis in the demotion patch
Users fetching from linux-next and other kernel remotes are reporting
that the limited ref advertisement causes negotiation to reach
MAX_IN_VAIN, resulting in too-large fetches.
turned out to be false, as Peff noticed. It wasn't due to the ref
advertisement but was due to the protocol v2 code's reimplementation
of negotiation. It's probably not worth amending the commit message,
given that it's already in "next"; we can correct the record in the
revert for 'master', which I should probably write during the day when
I am less likely to make more errors.
Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Why not merge the fixes for v2,
> though? Even if it is not the default keeping it broken in maint does
> not sound great.
Yes, I like the "demote and fix" approach you're recommending.
Thanks,
Jonathan
