Re: [PATCH] provide advance warning of some future pack default changes

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

"Martin Langhoff" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

If cvs 1.11 doesn't talk with 1.12 I'll say there are nuts - minor
revisions should interoperate with end users not even thinking about
it. But 1.5.5 has in its changelog lots of deprecations and interop
changes.

It's not good communication to label it 1.5.5.

There indeed are handful scheduled removals.  I do not mind declaring
that 1.6.0 comes after 1.5.4, or just relabel the removal schedule for
1.6.0 and keep the scheduled change on hold a bit longer.

I think Git development is dynamic enough to justify 1.6.0 right after 
1.5.4.

By the way, I wonder if there would be packv4 in time for 1.6.0;
perhaps not enabled by default.

I don't think so.  First, if packv4 actually happens, it might justify 
v2.0.0 and not v1.6.0.

But so far there were steady improvement made to the system even with 
the current pack format, so the return on the investment for packv4 is 
diminishing.  The largest road block for packv4 at the moment is a 
complete refactoring of the tree walking code.


Nicolas