From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Weidendorfer Subject: Re: Deprecate --cache.* ? Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:18:18 +0100 Message-ID: <200511161018.19374.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> References: <437A5F08.7020908@etek.chalmers.se> <7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 16 10:18:50 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EcJR9-0008Ae-Uj for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:18:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030256AbVKPJSX convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:18:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030261AbVKPJSX (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:18:23 -0500 Received: from mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.18]:39628 "EHLO mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030256AbVKPJSW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:18:22 -0500 Received: from dhcp-3s-40.lrr.in.tum.de (dhcp-3s-40.lrr.in.tum.de [131.159.35.40]) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C52C950 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:18:21 +0100 (MET) To: git@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 In-Reply-To: <7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new/sophie/sophos at mailrelay2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wednesday 16 November 2005 07:06, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Lukas Sandstr=F6m writes: >=20 > > Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of th= e flags > > around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used. > > > > Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep "cache" around? >=20 > I agree that may be a logical move, with proper b/c slack, but I > am not _so_ enthused about this... Probably, as your fingers are trained. I just tried it to write 10 times as fast as possible: cache, and afterwards index; and writing cache *is* faster ;-) But for someone new to git, these options must be totally confusing and coming out of nowhere. Not that I use these often - I am a Cogito user. Practically, the opinion of people using these options often should count, as it will be inconvenient for them. Rare users can look up the man page. Josef