[Commented On] D8480: bundle: make obsolescence parts optional

[marmoute (Pierre-Yves David)]

marmoute added a comment.


  In D8480#127498 <https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8480#127498>, @joerg.sonnenberger wrote:
  
  > While I don't really agree with the design interpretation of why the server should send mandatory, I don't care enough in this case.
  
  The is no "design interpretation going on here", am I the author of these APIs/protocols and I am clarifying  their semantics. The intend for this part to be mandatory in the context have been here since the begining.
  
  > With the update, bundle and pull/push are getting different flags.
  
  As I pointed out in my previous reply, there are valid usecase for having the part mandatory in a bundle too. Can you apply me recommendation and add a third values to the existing bundle-spec parameter for your usecase?

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8480/new/

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D8480

To: joerg.sonnenberger, #hg-reviewers, marmoute
Cc: durin42, marmoute, mercurial-patches
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-patches/attachments/20200517/760bbe5e/attachment-0002.html>