Re: Train station analogy, was Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] [RFC] Upstreaming the Scalar command

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

I don't think that there is a lot of sense in that. The main benefits of
`scalar` are in the `register` and the `clone` part, and the most natural
end game would hence be for `git init` and `git clone` to sprout new
options to support Scalar's features, in a Git-native way.

Yes, that is even better.  An endgame where everybody benefits
natively would be highly desirable.

Now you are back, do you think we can have the "no more preserve
merges backend" topic graduate to 'master', or do you prefer to cook
it over the cycle (or even two)?

Thanks.

Hi Junio,

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I don't think that there is a lot of sense in that. The main benefits of
`scalar` are in the `register` and the `clone` part, and the most natural
end game would hence be for `git init` and `git clone` to sprout new
options to support Scalar's features, in a Git-native way.

Yes, that is even better.  An endgame where everybody benefits
natively would be highly desirable.

I am glad that this question is now resolved.

Now you are back, do you think we can have the "no more preserve
merges backend" topic graduate to 'master', or do you prefer to cook
it over the cycle (or even two)?

I did not see _any_ problems with it, so I'd be in favor of promoting it
to `master`. But if you want to play the game more carefully, I would be
fine with that, too.

Ciao,
Dscho