On 04/18, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In this series we stop completing the 'git stash save' subcommand in > > git-completion.bash. The command has been deprecated for a while,... > > Anything deprecated in Oct 2017 is still too young in Git's > timescale, but this is the right thing to do in the longer term. Fair enough. I vaguely remembered this thread [1], that tried to add 'rm' back to the autocompletion after it was removed originally to try and start the deprecation process. Reading the thread again now though it seems what you outline below to just not show "save" when "git stash <TAB>" or "git stash s<TAB>" is typed makes more sense as a step now. I also notice that we never seemed to have taken any of the suggestions made there (either adding 'rm' back to the completion options, or going further in the deprecation process), though that's a different topic :) > Regarding [2/3], I think > > - It is perfectly fine to stop offering "save" among the choices > when "git stash <TAB>" is given, so that we AVOID actively > suggesting "save" to those who do not know (or do not want to > learn) about it. Instead we would knudge them towards "push". > After all, that is what "deprecation" is all about. > > - It also is OK to limit the offering to "show" against "git stash > s<TAB>", even though the user _could_ have meant "save" than the > above case with totally empty subcommand name. > > - It is questionable to stop offering "save" to "git stash > sav<TAB>" it is clear that the user wants to say "save" in this > case, as there is no other subcommand the user could have meant. > > - It is outright hostile to the end user if we stop completing "git > stash save --q<TAB>" with "--quiet". At that point, we _know_ > that the user wants "save", and getting in the way of those who > know what they are using does not feel quite right. > > Of course, being more accomodating to existing users by taking the > last two points above seriously would raise a separate issue of when > we stop doing so, and if we should start doing something else. If > there is a way to implement a "reluctant completion" that gives > "save" as a completion choice while giving a deprecation warning to > let the user know of the plan for removal of "save", that would be > good, for example. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a closer look at what could be done, and will send a re-roll. > Thanks. [1]: 01020160a0004473-277c3d7c-4e3b-4c50-9d44-4a106f37f1d9-000000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
