On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:38:03PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: >On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:52:13PM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: >> Bryn M. Reeves <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Bryn M. Reeves <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> I guess it depends how much we care about being close to upstream for this. >> > >> If it's worth the effort to move these to libexec, then perhaps putting >> > >> compatibility symlinks in place for a couple of releases (with a clear >> > >> relnote that they will be removed in a future release and scripts need >> > >> updating) could be a way to handle the transition? >> > > Adding symlinks does nothing to help, it just delays the pain because >> > > people won't read the release notes or won't bother to fix their >> > > scripts until the symlinks disappear. Fixing the scripts is trivial, >> > > and backwards compatible to boot. >> >> > No, but having an entry in the release notes for a release or two >> > gives something more concrete to point at and say "I told you so" than >> > an announcement on the fedora-devel lists which are not read by most >> > users (yes, I know that this was announced three years ago upstream, >> > but the same comment regarding users not reading things applies). >> >> It has been announced in git's release notes for more than two years now! > >I would expect a good number of git users on Fedora don't watch the >git upstream. Putting a note in the F11 release notes is perfectly >valid, reasonable, and laudable. We (the git maintainers) can certainly do that. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
