Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > More generally, we've been able to make changes to porcelain commands > that don't hurt our ability to act as a platform for scripts, and I > want us to continue to be able to do that. "Do not break any script" > is certainly not the standard I think we should apply, as illustrated > by my thoughts upthread when I thought '-m' in this Rust example was a > typo. > > But by now it's very clear to me that it was not a typo. This is a tangent that does not change the conclusion, because the use of "-m" in "stash list" was not a typo but a deliberate attempt to allow "-p" from the end-users to do what they wanted to do, and it was clearly broken by this change (as you said, the need to hide the breakage in the same series should have ringed a loud bell for us). But I didn't see how you think your Rust thing is not a typo, and I still don't. Unless you think Rust folks expected "-m" to do what "-m" was not designed to do, that is, and I do not think that "people thought it did something entirely differently, when it was a no-op, so we shouldn't suddenly make it not a no-op" is a good rationale that affects how we choose the evolution path for our tools. THanks.
