From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ACF1F619 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726838AbgCMAKR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:10:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54094 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726608AbgCMAKR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:10:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7811F52513; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:10:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=V0GIMRf9Y9d5N8w4MlRP1T7pXPw=; b=dJJ2nY tZZXLk1HNrZbiPTRqZNWUnCZVW5SMQUjWc5bhYvKyQTNM3uymMRSfxi/T69Rhe8S IcxaRZ7f9NlgKkL37jGXXl7qB7ZfwVTKxYHHxwYlRgsxHqiHskQQIgpKLSLNBOom pLLNGnYqOYZ/gMUOZQXnU7gTU62TnzP3qZ8f4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=CklDFopkkseKz/nG7n9ByC+bcHwlIfP4 C/uWc4BvM2moxiSLtR66pnTjsQWWOnOJtCwTjWEvaIW4qh7d2JcvkMA7iae47UCf 0Bssvedr8L0TJTOv+IWDy2ghlH5065QLBdU8dO2uWleyn+dEmM5CYHJdJeH2tGLd bQNUxeXw81Q= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7051752512; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:10:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1D9E52511; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:10:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Jonathan Tan , Derrick Stolee , git , Taylor Blau Subject: Re: [Question] Is extensions.partialClone defunct? References: <5981c317-4b39-de15-810b-a781aa79189d@gmail.com> <20200312170714.180996-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> <20200312175151.GB120942@google.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:10:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2020 22:54:29 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0384B972-64BF-11EA-AAFE-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: > My opinion has always been that "extensions.partialClone = " > is a mistake as it is inherently making difficult to have many > promisor remotes. Is there a reason why extensions.partialClone cannot be multi-valued, just like say "remote.origin.fetch" is?