Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 01:39:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> When I hear something like what David Woodhouse said in this thread, I
>>> should be feeling "People -- those of you who claimed to be the silent
>>> majority -- see, I told you so!  This is a very bad move".
>>>
>>> But I can't.  People who complain _now_ just annoy me even more.  Why
>>> weren't you defending the backward compatibility with me, which you seem
>>> to value it so much, perhaps even more than I did back then?  Why are you
>>> wasting our time bringing it up again, instead of joining the discussion
>>> when it _mattered_ back then?
>>
>> We didn't know the conversation was going on.  Why should we?  We only
>> use the tool, not develop it.  I'm also not on the mailing lists for
>> mutt, vim, gcc, binutils, openssh, grep, xchat, mozilla, gnome, xpdf or
>> any of the dozens of other programs I use on a daily basis.
>
> Oh, I wasn't talking to you, or "we as git users".  The user side of the
> discussion has long been over in another thread titled "[kernel.org users]
> README and ChangeLog files" that was started by HPA, and everybody now
> knows that the conclusion of the discussion was that 1.6.0 transition was
> underadvertised to the end-user community and caused pain.  Sorry about
> that, but let's leave it behind.  What has happend has happened.
>
> The discussion in this thread was about how to go forward from here, now
> the transition is over.  One of the future directions the transition was
> aiming at was removal of git-foo form for built-ins even from the libexec
> area -- I was complaining about David's beating an offtopic dead horse in
> the above, because it was throwing the thread in an off-track direction,
> distracting everybody from discussing what was more important, discussing
> constructively if/how to proceed from here.
>
> Now the primary topic of what to do about built-ins have already settled.
> We _will_ keep git-foo commands in the libexec area.  We won't be removing
> them.
>
> So there is no need to worry.

Still, if this is the decision, all the documentation should be
updated, and people should be discouraged to mention the git-foo
commands ever again, otherwise new users would get confused.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux