From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Willy Tarreau Subject: Re: stripping [PATCH] without losing later tags from mailed patches (Re: [ 02/12] Remove COMPAT_IA32 support) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20120312191727.GI12405@1wt.eu> References: <20120312063027.GB8971@1wt.eu> <20120312064855.GB16820@burratino> <20120312085820.GA11569@1wt.eu> <20120312152004.GB9380@kroah.com> <20120312152453.GB12405@1wt.eu> <87aa3l4vqq.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120312165703.GB18791@burratino> <7vvcm9snko.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120312185008.GH12405@1wt.eu> <20120312185440.GA21817@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Thomas Rast , Greg KH , Ben Hutchings , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 12 20:17:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Akl-0003aK-MX for glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756678Ab2CLTRq (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:46 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:63213 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756637Ab2CLTRp (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:45 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q2CJHR3G014898; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:17:27 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120312185440.GA21817@burratino> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:54:40PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > From my user experience and what I see on a number of coworkers, users > > tend to make big jumps when they need a new feature, so in practice, > > not offering the option in a version or two would probably not affect > > most users, especially the ones still relying on the old behaviour. So > > I don't see much benefit in waiting for repurposing the option. > > The benefit is that if it does turn out to be a regression, early > adopters will complain to us because their scripts have stopped > working and we get a chance to back out the change without having to > worry about others who have started to rely on the option. Indeed you're right. I forgot the case of the old script relying on the silently ignored parameter! Regards, Willy