Re: [PATCH 0/2] thin-pack capability for send-pack/receive-pack

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

If we instead introduced "no-thin", it is more like:

  1. Receive-pack starts advertising "no-thin" (as dictated by
     circumstances, as Carlos describes).

  2. Send-pack which does not understand no-thin will ignore it and send
     a thin pack. This is the same as now, and the same as step 2 above.

  3. An upgraded send-pack will understand no-thin and do as the server
     asks.

So an upgraded client and server can start cooperating immediately, and
we do not have to wait for the long assumption time to pass before
applying the second half.

It is tempting to think about a "thin" flag because that would be the
natural way to have implemented it from the very beginning. But it is
not the beginning, and the negative flag is the only way at this point
to say "if you understand this, please behave differently than we used
to" (because the status quo is "send a thin pack, whether I said it was
OK or not").

I think the only sane option at this point is a "no-thin" flag, or
just require servers that want to be wire compatible to accept thin
packs.