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

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#61

Post by bluejekyll »

simias wrote: post #28

Let that be a reminder to all the coders out there: if you ever design a protocol or file format to communicate between machines always remember to add a version field or some other way to allow for updates and revisions later without breaking everything. Having a way to specify extensions in a backward-compatible way is nice too.

DNS has no version field. I'm torn as to the choice here. On the one hand, DNS is backwards compatible with everything.

EDNS is the only way to extend the protocol now, which is basically just adding additional Records to the Message that are designated as Extended DNS records, and treated specially.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#62

Post by _ikke_ »

Someone1234 wrote: post #22

Too bad they didn't make Git LFS part of Version 2[0]. Most vendors[2] support LFS already but because it isn't required, some still lack it and its support cannot be assumed. [0] https://git-lfs.github.com/ [1] https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/wiki/Implementations

Git LFS is not part of core-git, but an extension built and maintained by github, and the code lives outside of the git tree, so it cannot be a required part of the protocol.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#63

Post by vga805 »

chrisseldo wrote: post #25
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #15

The current (and pretty much only, ever, despite Linus having been the creator) maintainer of git is a google employee [1], in case anyone else was wondering. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junio_Hamano

>"Linus Torvalds said in 2012 that one of his own biggest successes was recognizing how good a developer Hamano was on Git, and trusting him to maintain it."

wow! what an accolade

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#64

Post by trumped »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #15

The current (and pretty much only, ever, despite Linus having been the creator) maintainer of git is a google employee [1], in case anyone else was wondering. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junio_Hamano

Does he do it as a Google employee or on his own time?

If he does it on his own time, why does it matter that he works at Google? and If he does it as a Google employee, when are the ads coming?

edit: 3 replies, 5 down-votes and no answer to the main question...

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#65

Post by Someone1234 »

_ikke_ wrote: post #62
Someone1234 wrote: post #22

Too bad they didn't make Git LFS part of Version 2[0]. Most vendors[2] support LFS already but because it isn't required, some still lack it and its support cannot be assumed. [0] https://git-lfs.github.com/ [1] https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/wiki/Implementations

Git LFS is not part of core-git, but an extension built and maintained by github, and the code lives outside of the git tree, so it cannot be a required part of the protocol.

> Git LFS is not part of core-git

I know, that's what I am suggesting should change in version 2.0. It is a widely supported popular extension that solves a major pain point for Git, most vendors have adopted it.

New things can absolutely be required as part of a new protocol version, in fact this blog post lists several new things that will be new in 2.0 and beyond.

The analogy I'd use is HTTP/2 and SPDY. SPDY started out as a Google produced extension to HTTP, gained popularity, and was then standardized/merged into the HTTP/2 standard. All I am suggesting is Git LFS receive the same treatment.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#68

Post by tgummerer »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #2

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

As mentioned in another comment, protocol v2 was implemented by a Google employee, and they decided to write a blog post about it. This is not an official git announcement.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#69

Post by andrewaylett »

rwmj wrote: post #60

Is there a git protocol variant that allows the client to avoid downloading objects that it already has stored locally in another repository or cache? For example: I have the Linux kernel already cloned in some directory. I clone a second repo which has the Linux kernel as a submodule. Can I clone the second repo straightforwardly without having to download Linux a second time? (Well yes, but only by manual intervent…

I'm assuming from your comment that you're already aware of --reference but it doesn't completely meet your needs? The only other thing I can think of would be to use the 'insteadOf' configuration to tell Git to use your local clone instead of the remote one. Search 'git help config' for 'url..insteadOf'.

Re: Introducing Git protocol version 2

#70

Post by Boulth »

rwmj wrote: post #60

Is there a git protocol variant that allows the client to avoid downloading objects that it already has stored locally in another repository or cache? For example: I have the Linux kernel already cloned in some directory. I clone a second repo which has the Linux kernel as a submodule. Can I clone the second repo straightforwardly without having to download Linux a second time? (Well yes, but only by manual intervent…

Have you seen alternates? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36123655/what-is-the-git...
Post reply on HN