Re: Git clonebundles

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

>> If people think it might be useful to have it around to experiment, I
>> can resurrect and keep that in 'pu' (or rather 'jch'), as long as it
>> does not overlap and conflict with other topics in flight.  Let me try
>> that in today's integration cycle.
>
> I would like to remind you of my suggestion to make this more publicly
> visible and substantially easier to play with, by adding it as an
> experimental feature (possibly guarded via an explicit opt-in config
> setting).

I do not understand why you want to give this topic undue prominence
ovver any other random topic that cook in 'pu' and later merged down
to 'next' and then 'master' only after they turn out to be useful
(or at least harmless).

If there were somebody who is the champion of that topic, advocating
that any clone-bundle solution must be based on this topic, it would
be different.  Even though I am not opposed to the topic myself, I
am not that somebody.  That is why I kept it around to wait to see
if somebody finds it potentially useful and then discarded it after
seeing no such person stepped up.

That champion of the topic would spend the necessaly engineering
effort to document it as experimental, to make sure that there is a
reasonable upgrade/transition route if the "v3" format turns out to
be not very useful, etc. by rerolling the patches or following-up on
them to advance it from 'pu' down to 'next' and to 'master' just
like any other topic.

Judging from the tone of his message (i.e. "unfortunately" in it),
Christian may want to be one, or somebody else may want to be one.