On 2023-04-26 at 15:13:55, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The phrasing "is currently ignored" was prone to be misinterpreted
> as if we were wishing if it were honored.  Rephrase it to make it
> clear that the experimental variable will be ignored.
> 
> In the longer term, after/when we allow incremental/over-the-wire
> migration of the object-format, i.e. cloning from an SHA-1
> repository to create an SHA-256 repository (or vice versa) and
> fetching and pushing between them would bidirectionally convert the
> object format on the fly, it is likely that we would teach a new
> option "--object-format" to "git clone" to say "you would use
> whatever object format the origin uses by default, but this time, I
> am telling you to use this format on our side, doing on-the-fly
> object format conversion as needed".  So it is perfectly OK to
> ignore the settings of this experimental variable, even after such
> an extension happens that makes it necessary for us to have a way to
> create a new repository that uses different object format from the
> origin repository.

I have a different proposal which clarifies when it will and will not be
honoured in my series.  I think we would want to honour this variable
once we have SHA-1 and SHA-256 interop, and can convert on the fly, so I
think keeping the "currently" here is a good idea.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA