Bundle2 last call

[Eric Sumner]

On 2/5/15, 11:46 AM, "Durham Goode" <durham at fb.com> wrote:

>
>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.

I'll throw my hat in for not changing it at all, as I don't see a benefit
in distinguishing between files written before and after it becomes
officially supported.  If we do change it, I'm +1 on a grace period as
well.

  -- Eric