On Sun, Apr 11 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So let's just remove it instead of fixing the bug, clearly nobody's >> cared enough to complain. > > Hmph, is that a safe assumption? They may have just assumed that > you did not break it and kept using plaintext without knowing? If > we do not give a warning when sending over an unencrypted channel in > red flashing letters, that is more likely explanation than nobody > caring that we saw no breakage reports, no? Maybe, I think in either case this patch series makes senes. We were already 11 years into a stated deprecation period of that variable, now it's 13. If we're going to e.g. emit some notice about it I think the parsing simplification this series gives us makes sense, we can always add a trivial patch on top to make it die if it sees the old variable. I don't think that's needed, do you?
