Hi Jake, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Sergey, >> >> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: >>> > Have a look at https://github.com/git/git/pull/447, especially the >>> > latest commit in there which is an early version of the deprecation I >>> > intend to bring about. >>> >>> You shouldn't want a deprecation at all should you have re-used >>> --preserve-merges in the first place, and I still don't see why you >>> haven't. >> >> Keep repeating it, and it won't become truer. >> >> If you break formats, you break scripts. Git has *so* many users, there >> are very likely some who script *every* part of it. >> >> We simply cannot do that. >> >> What we can is deprecate designs which we learned on the way were not only >> incomplete from the get-go, but bad overall and hard (or impossible) to >> fix. Like --preserve-merges. >> >> Or for that matter like the design you proposed, to use --first-parent for >> --recreate-merges. Or to use --first-parent for some --recreate-merges, >> surprising users in very bad ways when it is not used (or when it is >> used). I get the impression that you still think it would be a good idea, >> even if it should be obvious that it is not. > > If we consider the addition of new todo list elements as "user > breaking", then yes this change would be user-script breaking. It _is_ user script breaking, provided such script exists. Has anybody actually seen one? Not that it's wrong to be extra-cautious about it, just curios. Note that to be actually affected, such a script must invoke "git rebase -p" _command_ and then tweak its todo output to produce outcome. > Since we did not originally spell out that todo-list items are subject > to enhancement by addition of operations in the future, scripts are > likely not designed to allow addition of new elements. Out of curiosity, are you going to spell it now, for the new todo format? > Thus, adding recreate-merges, and deprecating preserve-merges, seems > to me to be the correct action to take here. Yes, sure, provided there is actual breakage, or at least informed suspicion there is one. > One could argue that users should have expected new todo list elements > to be added in the future and thus design their scripts to cope with > such a thing. If you can convincingly argue this, then I don't > necessarily see it as a complete user breaking change to fix > preserve-merges in order to allow it to handle re-ordering properly.. I'd not argue this way myself. If there are out-of-git-tree non-human users that accept and tweak todo _generated_ by current "git rebase -p" _command_, I also vote for a new option. > I think I lean towards agreeing with Johannes, and that adding > recreate-merges and removing preserve-merges is the better solution. On these grounds it is, no objections. -- Sergey
