On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 09:05:33PM -0800, david@xxxxxxx wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand your argument here. If you have a machine that >> needs to do _exactly_ what you have tested, then wouldn't you be >> concerned about upgrading git 1.5.6.5 to (for example) git 1.7? Or since >> you are probably looking at a more macro-level, upgrading Debian 5.0 to >> Debian 6.0? > > two points > > 1. someone running Debian 5 who then upgrades to Debian 6 should get the > warning, not the refusal, then when they go to Debian 7 the refusal can be > the standard (and substatute redhat enterprise version numbers for debian > if you want) So people doing major version upgrades of their OS don't need to read release notes or re-test behavior? What about people who skip straight from 5 to 7? It's OK for them not to see the warning, because two major versions means they should read the release notes and re-test? > so a warning can go in at any time, but changing the default in a way > that's not backwards compatible needs to be done over a _very_ long > timeframe. so long that it's worth questioning if it's worth changing (as > opposed to either just leaving the warning, or trying to figure out a > different way) There has been a lot of questioning, and a lot of discussion of alternatives already. Please check the list archive for some of it. I don't think there is a timetable set at this point. -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
