Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> --binary) >> : ;; >> -b) >> gettextln >&2 "The -b option (a no-op short for --binary) was removed in 1.7.10." >> die "$(gettext "Please adjust your scripts.")" >> ;; >> >> Mentioning deprecation in 1.6.0 in the message left me uneasy because >> we never actually did anything to actively deprecate the option; it >> just has not been needed since 1.4.3 and we stopped advertising it in >> the manpage in 1.6.0. So I don't like the implication of "this is all >> right because we told you so" --- on the contrary, it is "in practice >> nobody seems to be using this option and we hope nobody will notice >> when we take it away". > > Hmm, I had an alternate patch ready in the morning, but Junio beat us to > it and applied the old one to master. I really don't think it is a good idea to avoid mentioning 1.6.0, at which we *removed* description of the option in our manual pages and from the "git am -h" help message. How much more active deprecation would a user want? To put it another way, think what your answer would be when somebody sees the message and says "eh? all of a sudden it was removed?". Wouldn't you tell him "At 1.6.0 we deprecated it and stopped advertising it"? Why not give that answer upfront? Especially when you think "in practice nobody seems to be using this" is true? -- 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