On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about > compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of > repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been > migrated. What's not backward about that? > This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke > backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different > approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be > followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations). > > But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact. > I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how > backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I? As far as I know you haven't explicitly said anything about that. There may still be a possibility that the sentence Junio quoted in his reply could have implied a certain attitude. >> 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. > > Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion. I wouldn't know about that. Apparently not everybody is happy with applying it without further discussion. 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