On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Just a reminder: we are very conservative when it comes to breaking > backwards compatibility. For example, people running (but not upgrading) > gitweb who want to upgrade Git may rightfully expect their setups not to > be broken for a long time, if ever. > > So your mentioning gitweb using "git diff" precludes all kind of cute > games, methinks. Are you aware that gitweb no longer calls "git diff", exactly because of problems caused by calling a porcelain from a script? I don't want to break existing setups, either. But at some point you have to say "this is porcelain, so don't rely on there not being any user-triggered effects in its behavior". If porcelain is cast in stone, then what is the point in differentiating plumbing from porcelain? And when the line is blurred (as I think it is in several places), then it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. What is the benefit, and what is the likelihood and extent of harm? > And please no "anybody who would do this and that would be nuts" excuses: > if you want to change something fundamental like this, _you_ have to > defend it. > > It is not acceptable to just shout out what you want and expect those > affected negatively to do the impact analysis for you. This message is addressed to me, but I don't know exactly what you think I'm proposing, failing to defend, or failing to do an impact analysis for. Or are you speaking generally of the "you" who submit patches? -Peff -- 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
