On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:57:56AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >>> The masses should forget about the git-foo form. If you push people >>> into using git-foo then you are not following git guidelines; you >>> would be pushing your own agenda. >> >> Egads... For sarcasm it's far too heavy-handed and if that's for real... >> What's next, verbal diarrhea about Diluting the Message(tm)? > > Sorry, I guess I should have made it clearer. > > I haven't made my mind about git-foo vs "git foo", but a decision has > been made to deprecate git-foo, and allow it as an option for the > people that really want to use it, right? > > So there must have been a reason to deprecate git-foo, if people keep > using git-foo, and distributions keep allowing it, what's the point of > deprecation? It's ok if they keep that usage to themselves, like > 'alias ll = ls -l', but it's not something to assume everybody uses. > > So either we take back the decision and keep discussing if it's a good > idea to deprecate git-foo, or we go forward and discourage git-foo > completely. > > Anything in the middle would just confuse people more, and wouldn't > achieve the purpose of deprecation. > > If some script is relying on git-foo, and it has been deprecated, it > should be fixed. Actually, now I think I understand the point of David Woodhouse better. If the git-foo was supposed to be deprecated in 1.6.0, it should still work by default, but something to strongly discourage it like a warning should have been added. When it becomes truly obsolete, then people can rely on git exec-dir, which will be disabled by default. So is it deprecated or obsolete? -- 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
