list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Jon Loeliger <>
Cc: David Bainbridge <>,
	Jeff King <>,
	"git\" <>
Subject: Re: Git Miniconference at Plumbers
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:11:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Jon Loeliger's message of "Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:09:41 -0500")

Jon Loeliger <> writes:

> So, like, David Bainbridge said:
>> Hi,
>> The subject matter of the conference looks really interesting but I am
>> unlikely to be able to attend, unfortunately.
>> The subjects being covered like the current State of Git and the
>> Future of Git, for example, deserve much wider exposure, and I would
>> certainly appreciate hearing the thoughts of Junio and others.
> Indeed.

You do not need to go to NM to _hear_ that.  Basically, I want us
not to have "big" plans that come from the top.

Now, you heard it ;-)

There are areas that we as Git community would want to address for
some audience that were discovered over the years, and that "some
audience" might even be a large population of Git users, but if that
does not have overlap with Kernel Plumbers, the Plumbers mini-conf
may not be a suitable venue for even mentioning them.  E.g. the
enhancement of the submodule subsystem to allow more end-user facing
commands to recurse into them; rearchitecting the index and redoing
the "sparse checkout" hack so that we can do narrow clones more
properly; supporting "huge objects" better in the object layer,
without having to resort to ugly hacks like GitLFS that will never
be part of the core Git.  These things may all be worth talking
about in wider Git setting, but some of them may be waste of time to
bring up in the Plumbers' venue.

The future of Git is shaped largely by end-user itches.  From my
point of view, Git people are going there primarily to find what
Kernel Plubmbers' itches are, and help assessing the workflow
improvements around Git the Plumbers are wishing for or designing
themselves by being there, because we are at the best position to
tell what kind of enhancement to Git is feasible and what is
unlikely to happen in the near term.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-12 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-06 17:42 Git Miniconference at Plumbers Jon Loeliger
2016-09-12  0:42 ` Jeff King
2016-09-12 13:32   ` Jon Loeliger
2016-09-12 17:53     ` David Bainbridge
2016-09-12 18:09       ` Jon Loeliger
2016-09-12 20:11         ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2016-09-12 23:14           ` Lars Schneider
2016-09-14 16:27             ` Christian Couder
2016-09-14 17:26             ` Junio C Hamano
2016-09-12 21:23         ` Jakub Narębski

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).