Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On the other hand, if we make `git-bugreport` a built-in, I cannot see any > downsides. > > For me, therefore, having it as a built-in is a clear win. What am I > missing? The right sense of relative importance between efficiently running the rest of Git by not bloting the main binary and making sure not to ship Git that does not run unless "git bugreport" runs (which makes sure that "bugreport" runs) is what you are missing, I suspect. Another thing is that you are giving "git bugreport" too much weight and too little credit to inexperienced users, by assuming that we will never hear from them when "bugreport" is incapable to run for them. They will report, with or without "git bugreport", and the more important thing you seem to be missing is that after the initial contact it would become an interactive process---there is no reason to prioritize to ensure that the initial contact has everything that is needed to diagnose any issue without further interaction. "With my build, even 'bugreport' dumps core." is perfectly good place to start. Besides, wouldn't the ones on platforms, on which "git bugreport" may have trouble running, i.e. the ones on minority and exotic platforms, tend to be self sufficient and capable (both diagnosing the issue for themselves, and reaching out to us as appropriate) ones in practice (e.g. I have NonStop folks in mind)?
