Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] docs: introduce document to announce breaking changes

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1305 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:17:29AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > I would definitely call Git 2.0 a breaking release as the changes to
> > git-push(1)'s defaults were quite significant.
> 
> Git 1.6.0 was certainly a lot more controversial than the change in
> Git 2.0, as the end-users never expected Git will change even with
> ample pre-warning.  We originally had all the "git-foo" in $PATH
> since 2005 when Git started, and we announced that we'll stop doing
> so in the release notes to Git 1.5.4 with instructions on how to
> adjust the scripts that use "git-foo" form.  Even then end-users
> (back then they were a lot smaller population---we are talking about
> Aug 2008) complained quite loudly.
> 
> [Readings]
> 
> * https://git.github.io/htmldocs/RelNotes/1.5.4.txt
> * https://git.github.io/htmldocs/RelNotes/1.6.0.txt
> * https://lore.kernel.org/git/7vprnzt7d5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org/

I had it in my mind that Git 1.6 was controversial, but I didn't quite
know why exactly as I haven't been around at that point in time yet. I
did read through its release notes to double check, but it seems like I
missed the important part even though it was up front.

Thanks for the history lesson, will add!

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]