Hi, On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old >>> version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script. >> >> Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the >> standard used for other parts of Git. > > What attitude? This attitude: > I am simply stating a fact. How much percentage of > people do you think still have .git/remotes around? How many people do > you think have clones more than 3 years old? And how many of these > people would complain if remotes were not properly completed for these > repos? > > I doubt anybody would have complained, but I guess we would never > know, because I already proposed a solution that would work for them > and only uses a *single* line of code, unlike the current 40 ones. > > I don't see what is the problem with the attitude of sending a patch > to remove code that most likely nobody cares about (neither you or I > have numbers on this), and then finding an alternative when people do > care about it. I don't think Junio actually meant an "attitude", but just your angle of approach (== attitude) on backwards compatibility. Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like it could be scheduled for a major release of git. Cheers, Frans -- 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