Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 03:23:02PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Jeff King wrote: > > > Preemptively finding portability problems may save work in the long > > > term. And people may even be using Git on AIX and just ignoring test > > > failures, or they have GNU coreutils installed anyway, etc. But it would > > > also save work if we can ignore platforms that nobody uses. > > > > I agree, but the Git project is overly preoccupied (IMO) with > > hypothetical issues some hypothetical users might have in some > > hypothetical situations, and that is used as a rationale to block changes > > that would improve the experience of the vast majority of users. > > > > This is not a hypothetical issue, and yet you are suggesting to > > discount it? > > > > I don't disagree, but this is not consistent. > > I don't think they're the same issue at all. > One is: we have millions of users, and this change may affect some of > them negatively, so we may want to err on the side of caution. This language may sound nice, but it doesn't match the behavior, which is much more akin to "this change may affect some of them negatively, therefore we must tune it forever so it never actually happens". Few people would object to erring on the side of caution. > The other is: this has been accidentally broken for four years and > nobody complained, so perhaps nobody is actually using it. Yes, maybe. Or maybe they haven't reported it yet. Either way I was confusing this issue with another one. This one does seem much less serious than I was thinking. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
