Re: Jonathan gives feedback --> flamewars inevitable?

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> If you had said "You know, I think they have this guideline, but it's
> not really relevant, what is relevant is X" right when the topic of
> bash-completion guidelines popped up, this thread would have looked
> much different.

Ah, apparently I was still unclear.

The leading underscore is a convention.  They do use it.  They are
thinking of moving to another convention and will probably do so.

I believe that convention is relevant to the git completion script.
Not because we should blindly follow everything the bash-completion
project does, but because there are reasons behind that convention,
following common practices means our behavior is less surprising, and
in fact I do want it to be possible to incorporate git's completion
script in the bash-completion project if that's convenient.

A little changed because their proposed future namespace does not make
it possible for outside contributors to make unofficial extensions and
then include them as something official later without change.  Maybe
that's a flaw.

When I stated what I thought was (and still think is) a fact, and you
decided that the best use of your time was to argue with me about that
instead of talking about the consequences, yes, I was annoyed.  It was
a rabbit hole I shouldn't have followed; you're right.  But I still
don't know what I should have said instead, or how to stop it from
coming up again and again.

Jonathan