From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1691F858 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 17:46:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754438AbcHCRpr (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:45:47 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64030 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754314AbcHCRpo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:45:44 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EF530507; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:45:43 -0400 (EDT) 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=2ZAdQpJoJ9J7yJS9NyMCrSyrkqU=; b=fESUWG 2izrBTY80eUGCorI8D5JY+3heBUwfuqQIZ0cTw2drXpjwW9jdsy7Amd5YFy7P8md dpnpBQvqbYSniJnv+aKPHShM0QEPtZxWlwz4UQjVpkKGfEYMRvDuXfsLORFD/Nmn GAW981Nm3ATz37toQqLU7B08eFQj/vC72RnB0= 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=HVDaREr2LNIc591JBUdY6YmcJnv0a3XG gGSeQjMA0QQqb7SqCoAzp2fVpV2PXaQp8CcDEQPkTjjnqrLeau8UWxD48dTg2Jgj 2DcP6pDDZgf1tllZZv7QYijWSksKX/JqJtRJBfwswmSYWKbYn85OqjPWAlW89Hya +OXOEs8Z6pI= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403A130506; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCFC030505; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:45:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: larsxschneider@gmail.com Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jnareb@gmail.com, tboegi@web.de, mlbright@gmail.com, e@80x24.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/12] convert: add filter..process option References: <20160729233801.82844-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160803164225.46355-12-larsxschneider@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:45:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160803164225.46355-12-larsxschneider@gmail.com> (larsxschneider@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:42:24 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 197BB70C-59A2-11E6-A548-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org larsxschneider@gmail.com writes: > packet: git< git-filter-protocol\n > packet: git< version=2\n > packet: git< capabilities=clean smudge\n During the discussion on the future of pack-protocol, it was pointed out that having to shove all capabilities on a single line/packet was one of the things we would want to fix in the current protocol when we revamp to v2. As this exhange between the convert machinery and an external process is a brand new one, I do not think you want to mimic the limitation in the current pack protocol like this; the limitation mostly came from the constraint that we cannot break existing pack protocol clients and servers before we extended the protocol to add capabilities. You may not foresee that the caps won't grow very long beyond clean/smudge right now, just like we did not foresee that we would wish to be able to convey a lot longer capability values to the other side when we added the capability exchange to the pack protocol, so "but but but we will never have that many" is not a good counter-argument.