On 2023-04-26 at 15:13:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The phrasing "is currently ignored" was prone to be misinterpreted > as if we were wishing if it were honored. Rephrase it to make it > clear that the experimental variable will be ignored. > > In the longer term, after/when we allow incremental/over-the-wire > migration of the object-format, i.e. cloning from an SHA-1 > repository to create an SHA-256 repository (or vice versa) and > fetching and pushing between them would bidirectionally convert the > object format on the fly, it is likely that we would teach a new > option "--object-format" to "git clone" to say "you would use > whatever object format the origin uses by default, but this time, I > am telling you to use this format on our side, doing on-the-fly > object format conversion as needed". So it is perfectly OK to > ignore the settings of this experimental variable, even after such > an extension happens that makes it necessary for us to have a way to > create a new repository that uses different object format from the > origin repository. I have a different proposal which clarifies when it will and will not be honoured in my series. I think we would want to honour this variable once we have SHA-1 and SHA-256 interop, and can convert on the fly, so I think keeping the "currently" here is a good idea. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
