Removal of support for core.preferSymlinkRefs at Git 3.0 boundary, so that we only write textual symrefs for things like HEAD and refs/remotes/origin/HEAD, and still understand symbolic links used as symrefs in existing repositories, is a serious proposal this patch series makes. But at the same time, this is an RFC. I wrote it to serve as a candidate for BCP, a guide to those who want to add an entry to the breaking changes document. I think anything that is described in the breaking changes document has to become a patch series that spans multi-year effort, and that must be done with care. - The proposal phase. A breaking change is outlined, transition plan is given, and the first step of the transition (often, starting to give a warning and offering an alternative to the feature planned to be removed are involved) is presented. The aim is that after N years, the user base will be aware of the upcoming removal and would already be prepared to be able to work with Git 3.0 that lacks the removed feature. In this series, [Patch 1/4] does this. - The Git 3.0 phase. A breaking change is actually implemented. It optionally can offer help to those who procrastinated until the last-minute to break them, but the feature itself is gone. In this series, [PATCH 2/4] and [Patch 3/4] do this. - Clean-up phase. If the previous phase added an additional transition help, after M years, such a help meant for transition would be removed. In this series, [PATCH 4/4] does this. What I want people to think about is how to ensure quality of the Git 3.0 phase. We can iterate and polish the proposal phase with as much time as we want to spend, just like any new feature. But Git 3.0 phase is with a solid deadline, and before that time, we cannot remove the feature for real. Would we cook such steps in 'next' forever until the actual Git 3.0? To those users who are running 'next' based Git, it would mean that some of the changes the breaking changes document listed would come a lot earlier to them. On the other hand, unless we somehow have a way to expose willing volunteers an early access to these "big changes", there is no way for them to be as stable and tested. We should not plan to scramble and be able to perfect these changes between Git v3.0-rc0 and Git v3.0 final. Or perhaps use the "experimental.*" configuration stored in the user's ~/.gitconfig to let users opt into Git 3.0 features (one of which may be that textual symrefs are always used regardless of the core.preferSymlinkRefs setting)? That way, we can merge these big changes early without worrying about accidentally affecting the end-user population. Junio C Hamano (4): refs: deprecate core.preferSymlinkRefs refs: mostly remove core.preferSymlinkRefs refs: remove NO_SYMLINK_HEAD refs: remove the last remnants of core.preferSymlinkRefs Documentation/BreakingChanges.txt | 11 ++++++++ Documentation/config/core.txt | 6 ----- Makefile | 6 ----- config.c | 5 ---- config.mak.uname | 3 --- configure.ac | 3 --- contrib/buildsystems/CMakeLists.txt | 2 +- environment.c | 1 - environment.h | 1 - refs/files-backend.c | 26 ------------------- t/t0600-reffiles-backend.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++------------- 11 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) -- 2.46.1-742-g4240f61078
