From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote-helpers: point at their upstream repositories Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 02:24:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20140517062413.GA13003@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140516084126.GB21468@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140516225228.GA3988@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5376f2ca5c90d_65b915db2f877@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 17 08:24:23 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WlY2d-0001eS-MG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 08:24:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756561AbaEQGYQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 May 2014 02:24:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:53635 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755136AbaEQGYP (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 May 2014 02:24:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 8510 invoked by uid 102); 17 May 2014 06:24:15 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sat, 17 May 2014 01:24:15 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 17 May 2014 02:24:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5376f2ca5c90d_65b915db2f877@nysa.notmuch> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:25:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I agree with the line of reasoning you laid out in your email, > > especially: > > What a shock. Please stop with these unproductive and rude comments. > > I hadn't thought of the rename idea, and it would address the concerns I > > brought up. I do think "obsolete" is the wrong word, as it sends the > > wrong message. The helpers are not obsolete; it is our _copy_ of them > > that is. > > Originally you said you would respect if I wanted the code out > for v2.0, I said I would like it out at some point, not necessarily in > v2.0. Junio said he was fine with that, but the proposals above don't do > that. > > Now it seems you are changing your mind and you are OK with the code > remaining in. My concerns were with people not noticing the README. Removing the code entirely is the way I thought of to address that. Junio suggested another way, which I would also be fine with. And it seems like a friendlier way than removal to handle it for v2.0, if we are going to remove the code entirely post-v2.0. As before, if your desire is to have the code out for v2.0, then say so. I think we should respect such a request. -Peff