Bundle2 last call

[Durham Goode]

On 2/5/15 10:07 AM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 12:46 +0000, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> On 02/04/2015 09:59 PM, Matt Mackall 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.
>> My english foo fails short here. I'm not sure what you are trying to mean.
>>
>> - If you are afraid that renaming the format break stuff I see this as
>> an argument to change it. It should not and I would like to be warned
>> early if it does,
>>
>> - If you are afraid that currently deployed experiment using HG2Y get
>> confused, I think it is easy to keep compabilitly between the 2 for a
>> couple of month. Especially if the underlying format see no changes.
> I think it's just easier to not change. But I don't have a strong
> opinion on this one.
>
+1 on having a grace period where both are supported.  We have 
non-trivial bundle2 deployments and a hard break would be a pain in the 
butt.