Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > As an aside, I wonder if we should consider deprecating and eventually > dropping support for core.prefersymlinkrefs. I can't think of a reason > anybody would want to use it, and of course it makes no sense as we move > on to alternate backends like reftables. Yup. Perhaps add an entry or two to BreakingChanges document? Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git c/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt w/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt index 0532bfcf7f..2a85740f3c 100644 --- c/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt +++ w/Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt @@ -115,6 +115,12 @@ info/grafts as outdated, 2014-03-05) and will be removed. + Cf. <20140304174806.GA11561@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. +* Support for core.prefersymlinkrefs will be dropped. Support for + existing repositories that use symbolic links to represent a + symbolic ref may or may not be dropped. ++ +Cf. <20240829040215.GA4054823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> + == Superseded features that will not be deprecated Some features have gained newer replacements that aim to improve the design in
