On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > If we instead introduced "no-thin", it is more like: > > 1. Receive-pack starts advertising "no-thin" (as dictated by > circumstances, as Carlos describes). > > 2. Send-pack which does not understand no-thin will ignore it and send > a thin pack. This is the same as now, and the same as step 2 above. > > 3. An upgraded send-pack will understand no-thin and do as the server > asks. > > So an upgraded client and server can start cooperating immediately, and > we do not have to wait for the long assumption time to pass before > applying the second half. > > It is tempting to think about a "thin" flag because that would be the > natural way to have implemented it from the very beginning. But it is > not the beginning, and the negative flag is the only way at this point > to say "if you understand this, please behave differently than we used > to" (because the status quo is "send a thin pack, whether I said it was > OK or not").
I think the only sane option at this point is a "no-thin" flag, or just require servers that want to be wire compatible to accept thin packs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
