Andy Parkins <andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wednesday 2006, November 15 18:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I still think in the long run you would be better off giving >> separate names to Porcelains because I am sure you are going to > > The problem I think with that is that the line between plumbing and porcelain > is not clear. This is moot because we (at least tentatively) agreed not to do "gh" or "ig" or whatever, but I do not understand why you feel so. If we had a separate Porcelain namespace (say "ng" for "new git") you would know "ng-commit" is not a Plumbing and when you are writing a Porcelain script you would stay away from using it in your script. In the longer term, when the new Porcelain UI Nico and friends are designing matures, and if it makes everybody (including existing users who learned git-* Porcelain-ish during 18-months process) happy, we could gradually deprecate and eventually remove the git-* Porcelain-ish over time, at that point we would have a very clear line between plumbing and porcelain. But that would not be a flag-day change. During the transition period you cannot mechanically tell if git-foo is a plumbing or a porcelain just like you cannot do so now. - 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