Hi, On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > I think there's a correlation here: anybody who's meddling with git > implementation details (yes, I'm talking about .dotest here) is probably > also subscribed to this list :) Seriously though, in git there is often > no clear line between implementation details and supported features, so > it's way to easy to claim everything is set in stone and that the world > will break if we change it. Especially if you've written a script that > happens to reach a little to far into the git guts. I think you are being unfair here: Imagine git-am stops somewhere because the patch fails. What to do? Where to look? What to fix? Exactly. You have _only_ one option. You look into .dotest/. So yes, it is an implementation detail. But one that we could not _possibly_ hide. What's so wrong with using a symlink first, trying hard not to break peoples' assumptions, then tell them that they should change their scripts (which they can do lazily now, since both .dotest/ _and_ .git/rebase/ are valid)? How is being nice to people wrong? Ciao, Dscho
