Handling of driver protocol extensions in cvs

[Philip Langdale]

Adam Jackson wrote:
> 
> There is no preferred mechanism atm.  Whatever makes your life easiest, I 
> suppose, though in the long term I would like as few driver-specific 
> extensions as possible.

Agreed, a proliferation of driver extensions isn't in anyone's interest.

Aivils Stoss posted a description of a generic extension a few days ago,
which might serve as a mechanism to standardise the driver extensions -
and even a simple key-value get-set extension where each driver could
publish keys would probably go a long way.

With that in mind, I'll probably just bundle the protocol description
with the driver and keep the client lib out of the tree - it won't be
of very much use to anyone except us for near future.

--phil