Re: [PATCH 2/3] completion: remove old code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Frans Klaver <fransklaver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

Not all backwards compatibility issues are the same.

>> 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.

I already asked, but I ask again; what would be that attitude? Not
caring about backwards compatibility? Then that implication would have
been wrong.

If you look a few lines below, you would see a change that doesn't
break backwards compatibility, which proves the previous implication
wrong... Not to mention previous discussions.

>>> 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.

Jonathan Nieder is happy with the 'ls -1 "$d/remotes"' change, and I
haven't seen anybody object it.

Either way. I'm not going to discuss in this thread any more. I'll
resend the patches, feel free to comment there.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]