Hi Junio,
On 17/02/2019 03:34, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
Those who do *not* opt into that "early warning" configuration dance
would eventually be warned whenever they type "diff A..B", and the
timing for that eventuality is not under their control, so quite
honestly, I do not see much point in "giving users the chance".
With the opposite hat on, not giving users the choice does seem unfair
to those that are trying to keep up. If we are warning (in the release
notes) of an upcoming deprecation (in the code) then it does seem
helpful that users could buy into the deprecation early, and at their
convenience, to assist in the unlearning of an old habit, which can be
much harder than learning a new habit, hence my comment.
You are right that those who neither notice nor care will be surprised
later, but we shouldn't let that limit others.
I still do not quite get where you are coming from. Are you saying
that those who do not opt into the early warning may get 2 cycles
(just picked out of thin-air) of deprecation period, and with an
optional early warning feature, those who feel that 2 cycles is not
long enough to train their fingers would spend 3 cycles and they
will be helped than without?
It was my understanding that the end point would be total removal of any
options and the typing of the double dot would be an error. Given that
hard end point I was looking to ensure that users of double dots have a
manageable route to unlearning old bad habits. Thus the first phase
would be opt-in, the second phase opt-out, and on the third final phase
it would be a non-optional error (assuming your first comment in [1]).
That line of thinking sounds somewhat ridiculous---where does it
end? If those who opt into would find it sufficient to have 3
cycles to train, there may still be people who feel 3 is not enough
and want to have 4. As we make it longer, we'd cover more people
and at some point we'd reach the point of diminishing returns.
The length of the phase 1 is your choice, but having a zero length (as
some discussions implied) felt too short. For me, one cycle of users
'opting-in' to do their testing and training given a deprecation
notification would be sufficient.
Wouldn't it be even better, and far simper, to just extend the
deprecation period to that many cycles to make it long enough for
majority of users' needs, without any early warning option?
The thing is, once you train your fingers,
To train the fingers, and to check local scripts and aliases, the user
needs feedback, preferably at a time of their convenience (as opposed to
being a time of inconvenience), so assuming they have been paying
moderate attention to the release notes, providing the opt-in phase
gives them that.
it does not matter to you
if the deprecation warning is still there, as you'd not be typing
"diff A..B" at that point. So I am not sure who you are trying to
help by the early warning option.
Thanks.
I do note that you had indicated at the end of [1]: "I am not sure if it
is worth the deprecation cost, though.", so this may be a bit of a mute
point anyway.
Philip
[1] <xmqqmumy6mxe.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "then eventually error
out when two-dot notation is used"
