Bundle2 last call

[Gregory Szorc]

I thought marmoute said he was going to change the framing so individual
parts were limited in size? I /think/ that would require an explicit wire
protocol bump?

As someone who wrote a lot of words about bundle2, I still think there are
issues worth addressing. But perfect is the enemy of done. I desperately
want to roll out bundle2 at Mozilla and we can't do that until we have
stronger guarantees about BC since we don't control all the system
deployments as tightly as others. If any of my concerns turn into real
problems, well, there is always bundle3.

You don't need it, but you have my blessing to do bundle2 as-is if that's
the plan.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 21:57 +0000, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >
> > On 01/20/2015 08:33 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > Ok, I've looked over the bundle2 discussion to date and while I see
> some
> > > things that could be better, I don't see anything that I think will
> > > cause us significant pain in the future. So I'm inclined to move
> forward
> > > with turning on bundle2 in its current form at the start of the 3.4
> > > development cycle. So if there's anything you think MUST be fixed
> before
> > > we move forward, now's your chance to convince me.
> >
> > Ultimate call, I'll probably send a lazy patch with s/HG2Y/HG20/g
> > patches before the end of the week otherwise.
>
> We might consider just letting the 2Y stand, so as not to invalidate any
> of our field testing with churn.
>
> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20150204/fb9e2f9f/attachment.html>