Am 07.08.21 um 03:55 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > The motivating example (Rust) shows that there is at least one script > that _did_ use "-m" in this way. Rust has mitigation, but the above > logic leads me to believe that they are not the only project that will > be affected. And more generally, when a script author has a > reasonable reason to believe something will work, they write scripts > where it _does_ work, and then an update breaks their script, I think > it's reasonable for them not to be happy. As you know, we have "plumbing" commands with a stable interface and "porcelain" commands for which we reserve to change the behavior without advance notice. By your reasoning we would not need to distinguish between the two categories and were forced to keep all behavior stable. This undoing of a behavior change in a "porcelain" command with the argument that one script depended on the old behavior and that others might do so as well would set an unwanted precedent. Perhaps we need to point script authors to "plumbing" commands more clearly? (BTW, I have no opinion on whether -m should or should not imply -p.) -- Hannes
