Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 18/03/12 18:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> ... but in short, it is not a problem we can solve >> (nor we should be solving), as long as we have a reasonable migration plan >> and if the user is locked out of that migration plan---whoever is doing >> the locking-out is taking responsibility for these users who are out of >> our reach. > > I take the point that distros have their own support infrastructure, so > perhaps this would be a better example: > > Many administrators in corporate environments will install git from > source, because they don't trust RPM/need some feature in the latest > version/are just that way inclined. Having installed it, they tend to > sit on that version for a few years ... The same response applies. These administrators are taking responsibility for their users by making them out of our reach. > ... a > slightly better solution: > > When a user upgrades to a mid- or post-change version of git, I think > it's a good idea for them to be warned about the change of behaviour. > But new users, and old users with new repositories, gain nothing from > the little history lesson. You are right for new users, but are wrong for old users who aren't aware of the switch-over, *and* are harmed by the switch-over. -- 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