On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, at 10:58, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Kristoffer,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> On 20/02/2024 10:36, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, at 10:29, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
>>> This reverts commit 4e43b7ff1ea4b6f16b93a432b6718e9ab38749bd.
>>> Version 2.44 is approaching, almost 5 years after the introduction of
>>> these two commands, it then looks safe to remove this experimental
>>> status.
>>
>> Is this only based on the amount of time passed? Has there been any
>> relevant discussions on the mailing list that discuss how mature these
>> commands are and if they should be changed (with presumably a “no” to
>> the question about being changed)?
>
> It is only based on the amount of time passed, indeed.
>
> I initially wanted to start a discussion on the mailing list: "is it
> normal these commands are still marked as experimental?". Then I saw the
> patch introducing this status, which was suggesting doing a revert in
> version 2.24 or 2.25. That's why I sent this, to start the discussions
> with a patch that is ready to apply. Is it not OK to do that here?
>
> Also, when I quickly looked at the history, I didn't see any behaviour
> changes since their introduction. Maybe there was a minor change with
> commit 088018e34d ("restore: default to HEAD when combining --staged and
> --worktree"), but it looks more like a fix than a behaviour change.
All good reasons.
The only reason why I ask is because I was vaguely aware of some
discussions (don’t know how long ago) where someone was skeptical about
changing one of the two experimental commands, and then someone else in
turn expressed some frustration about this concern since they are after
all marked experimental. And the context was some UI/UX problems with
the command.
But we’ll see.
--
Kristoffer Haugsbakk
