On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 8:09 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Changes compared to version 1 > > ... > > Thanks to Junio, Patrick, Eric and Taylor for their suggestions. > > We haven't heard from anybody in support of (or against, for that > matter) this series even after a few weeks, which is not a good > sign, even with everybody away for GitMerge for a few days. By the way there was an unconference breakout session on day 2 of the Git Merge called "Git LFS Can we do better?" where this was discussed with a number of people. Scott Chacon took some notes: https://github.com/git/git-merge/blob/main/breakouts/git-lfs.md It was in parallel with the Contributor Summit, so few contributors participated in this session (maybe only Michael Haggerty, John Cai and me). But the impression of GitLab people there, including me, was that folks in general would be happy to have an alternative to Git LFS based on this. > IIRC, the comments that the initial iteration have received were > mostly about clarifying the intent of this new capability (and some > typofixes). What are opinions on this round from folks (especially > those who did not read the initial round)? Does this round clearly > explain what the capability means and why projects want to use it > under what condition? > > Personally, I still find that knownName is increasing potential > attack surface without much benefit, but in a tightly controled > intranet environment, it might have convenience value. I dunno.
