On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:17:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > I would definitely call Git 2.0 a breaking release as the changes to > > git-push(1)'s defaults were quite significant. > > Git 1.6.0 was certainly a lot more controversial than the change in > Git 2.0, as the end-users never expected Git will change even with > ample pre-warning. We originally had all the "git-foo" in $PATH > since 2005 when Git started, and we announced that we'll stop doing > so in the release notes to Git 1.5.4 with instructions on how to > adjust the scripts that use "git-foo" form. Even then end-users > (back then they were a lot smaller population---we are talking about > Aug 2008) complained quite loudly. > > [Readings] > > * https://git.github.io/htmldocs/RelNotes/1.5.4.txt > * https://git.github.io/htmldocs/RelNotes/1.6.0.txt > * https://lore.kernel.org/git/7vprnzt7d5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I had it in my mind that Git 1.6 was controversial, but I didn't quite know why exactly as I haven't been around at that point in time yet. I did read through its release notes to double check, but it seems like I missed the important part even though it was up front. Thanks for the history lesson, will add! Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
