On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > To be fair, I have not seen anything that actually reads the todo list and tweaks it in such a manner. The closest example is the git garden shears script, which simply replaces the todo list. It's certainly *possible* that such a script would exist though, Thanks, Jake >> 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
