Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Git protocol version 2

opensource.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#151

Post by pm215 »

lsiebert wrote: post #109

I'm a very (very) minor contributor to git. If you are at all interested in hacking on Git, it's not that difficult. Knowing C and portable shell scripting for writing tests are the big things. One sticking point, you need to submit patches to the mailing list, you can't just do a github pull request. See https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/Submitt... I still see github pull requests rather frequentl…

It's unfortunate that github doesn't let a project disable the on-website UI for pull request submission; as it is it's easy for somebody to end up wasting their time trying to submit a change that way. (QEMU has that issue too.)

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#152

Post by cesarb »

simplicio wrote: post #102
fiatjaf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may seen odd, but it could happen in a open-source world: multiple parties releasing different versions of the same piece of software and calling it the same.

Both Git and Linux are trademarked, presumably to prevent such hijinx

Linux is trademarked because of some "hijinx"...

"Initially, nobody registered it, but on August 15, 1994, [...] filed for the trademark Linux, and then demanded royalties from Linux distributors. In 1996, Torvalds and some affected organizations sued him to have the trademark assigned to Torvalds, and, in 1997, the case was settled." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Copyright,_trademark_and...

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#153

Post by ksec »

harveynick wrote: post #120
harveynick wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. The answer is actually quite complicated... and I have no idea if I'm allowed to talk about it publically or not.

The most recent reason public reference I can find to this is from 2016: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor... Here's the money quote: "The team is also pursuing an experimental effort with Mercurial an open source DVCS similar to Git. The goal is to add scalability features to the Mercurial client so it can efficiently support a codebase the size of Google's. This would provide Google's dev…

Not sure why I got heavily downvotes. This above was the pieces of information that got me to think they were all on hg. So judging from the comment I stand corrected.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#154

Post by vitus »

pilif wrote: post #141
nneonneo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the TLS 1.3 RFC: > In previous versions of TLS, this field was used for version negotiation and represented the highest version number supported by the client. Experience has shown that many servers do not properly implement version negotiation, leading to "version intolerance" in which the server rejects an otherwise acceptable ClientHello with a version number higher than it supports. In TLS 1.3, the client ind…

>but thankfully the "extension" format is pretty flexible in that regard Just like the version field. I'm sure middlebox software is being updated as we speak to terminate connections with unknown versions in the „supported_versions“ extension.

If the extension field is anything like IP or TCP options, some middleboxes will also tamper the hell out of that field and strip unknown extensions, or just break connections.

Often-referenced paper in that field: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2011/docs/p181.pdf

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#155

Post by ImJasonH »

pm215 wrote: post #151
lsiebert wrote: post #109

I'm a very (very) minor contributor to git. If you are at all interested in hacking on Git, it's not that difficult. Knowing C and portable shell scripting for writing tests are the big things. One sticking point, you need to submit patches to the mailing list, you can't just do a github pull request. See https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/Submitt... I still see github pull requests rather frequentl…

It's unfortunate that github doesn't let a project disable the on-website UI for pull request submission; as it is it's easy for somebody to end up wasting their time trying to submit a change that way. (QEMU has that issue too.)

Totally agree! I made nopullrequests.com to help solve this.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#156

Post by tinus_hn »

Cynddl wrote: post #46
Retroity wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-Mobile link for those on desktop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junio_Hamano

The mobile version of Wikipedia works perfectly fine in a browser. I personally prefer it for readability.

If you link the normal desktop version it the reader will automatically be redirected to the place they prefer.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#157

Post by joatmon-snoo »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #14
GauntletWizard wrote: post #2

Interesting that they took to the Google blog to announce this; is there a corresponding LKML post?

Why LKML? Despite Git's origins from and use by the Linux project, it isn't especially tied to it now. LKML would presumably be the place for Linux to announce when they adopt this. The Google open source blog is among the several credible options for this post, since Google employs much of the core Git team, and this post discusses their experience deploying Git protocol v2 at Google. As noted in the blog text, it's…

Junio posts on the list when there's a new release, e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqwoxw6kkk.fsf@gitster-ct.c.g...

It seems that https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/git-packagers is the closest thing to a formal announcement list that there is.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#158

Post by joatmon-snoo »

kardianos wrote: post #35
seabrookmx wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the "big" Google projects they use a proprietary system called piper. I think all their open-source stuff (Angular, GoLang, Android) uses git (and sometimes Gerrit). Although given Google's scale, I'm sure there's some teams/projects that use Mercurial.

Gerrit is a review server that uses git. In fact, Gerrit now stores the majority of information in git itself for all the information it uses. So for Google external projects, they use git. > Although given Google's scale, I'm sure there's some teams/projects that use Mercurial. I doubt it. Their tooling is probably pretty specific, and now that code.google.com has shut down, they probably don't have any review serve…

Everything speaks Piper.

Devs can use the mercurial/git clients mentioned in the paper linked by harveynick.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#160

Post by xorcist »

avar wrote: post #150
xorcist wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are to link to a git repo, don't link to some unoffical mirror. That would just confuse search engines. The specificiation of the v2 protocol is here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/Documentatio... (There are a couple of repos listed as official mirrors, such as the googlesource.com one, but the one you linked to isn't one of them.)

The repository I linked to is official. See https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqindt6g1r.fsf@gitster.mtv.co... What list are you referring to? If it doesn't list the one on GitHub it needs to be fixed.

I had a release announcement open for other reasons and noted the different URLs, but I was wrong and the link is absolutely fine. Thanks. If I could edit the post I would, so I'll just let this sit here in case anyone is confused (as I was).
Post reply on HN