Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear diary, on Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:15:51PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Jim Meyering <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said that...
>> I promised this patch some time ago, made the changes,
>> and then never sent them. This is slightly different
>> from the current implementation in that it fails when both
>> scripts are executable. Also, it factors out the script names and
>> adds tests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'm not sure I like this (of course, I always like additional tests,
> though). The problem is that this loses a smooth upgrade path, things
> suddenly break and you can't commit without having to think about fixing
> your environment.
How would such a tiny change affect the upgrade path?
Failing when both scripts are executable feels more like doing the
(confused) user a favor than complicating their upgrade experience :-)
In case it wasn't clear, the only change induced by that patch is to
make cg-commit fail if *both* commit-post and post-commit scripts
exist and are executable. I'll bet that is unusual enough not to matter.
> deprecation warnings. So if we want to get rid of commit-post, we should
> rather start printing deprecation warnings if commit-post exists, and in
> few months cut commit-post off.
If you want to retire "commit-post", that's mostly independent.
IMHO, the things to do:
-- announce and document the name change (leaving mention of the old
name at least temporarily in the documentation)
-- later, start warning if the old name is used
-- later still: fail if the old name is used
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html