From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C49C433EF for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 09:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237266AbiGSJSr (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2022 05:18:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46836 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237118AbiGSJSM (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2022 05:18:12 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x629.google.com (mail-ej1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE0927B30 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 02:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x629.google.com with SMTP id tk8so14626387ejc.7 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 02:18:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q+NA3phPyewrrTXNTo6H+sI4p8BOf5MClE/v0NDykhY=; b=ZgraV9LkY0uknWH7NmixMg2sCMdf7G1iTPEH39RJaH4yHbYXnQfZotcZMnb7p8hUhE e+03MFG0HgEcC/OGQCY7maVNoBpsgqEaygsPqXq8Ke/DwoBC7udAVcyJbQDzRiO71JOQ SS0mYr3az7etegKrAnM1bnb9flt/xGcuiF1wtJFWdb3eKjtfDGRLvx4uMdaZcPwX4WRZ 6ew9asTDcJDs904H6/Z0jpL2wDSjfRxsOAobEd9GXrkGXxxAMdZhXtjkpNUJjmXFNcO7 M7hqqtumza5AUKN3R4RC+ssROLFg/OazWKMI6icK0GbZC22QQ/hI1bjo9FvuQ3x6KcTR +DNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q+NA3phPyewrrTXNTo6H+sI4p8BOf5MClE/v0NDykhY=; b=nOPzFZ/yFhBP+vq6uoEbeZxCtbkT2IH87DnRbg9sqDMP/KMl/2haHTBFL4wAw0P0ot 7ysY6y1+tvbk8T61uIvYeEsgZ8Qh0J5INSwqqwADMHT2D3ZzDFKm9k7yJdRKQYKo5k7O Jevba6B63PLe5Ksml7LvQJZDMbRKODZqIwkScOtzDTn09r9ocSIuoNlX/IUzr9OW5CEh L/EqKQJmuenNkom7A6ek5M/GJs9FKedLGxfOriMihsfr7lPLmVxQm3QvWqJjpAiPwmPh vI10y96TuM4Kwv1vgMw/AGYk6l9SCH9olGzd0N4CuWvIawwaU5GLvjk4F43iuTgsnMmp w3Vg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/iLUmQauAlmaU3tf/8z9HBKEWP77zPV6vSf7FKItW7vwz4kY2U 2ATNm4pJqZMNZffdDtm45A6yLEKjiZogXw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1slHwcAbeJt2mjbMqlhjEy0/nkhR2kv/MkQBwbKDGnX4ukSXTNOyxmTcjmTeOxt6WItsVbvpQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:b17:b0:72a:edb8:7529 with SMTP id h23-20020a1709070b1700b0072aedb87529mr28486511ejl.749.1658222289378; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 02:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmgdl (dhcp-077-248-183-071.chello.nl. [77.248.183.71]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v18-20020a170906293200b007052b183d51sm6430015ejd.132.2022.07.19.02.18.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jul 2022 02:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1oDjMl-003Xxc-4I; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 11:18:07 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-repack doc: remove discussion of ancient caveat Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 11:07:29 +0200 References: <220716.8635f1zdg3.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220718.86tu7eyhvz.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.7.12 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <220719.8635exwje8.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 18 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > >> Which I may have misread, but I understood as going beyond suggesting >> that we cover #2 over (or in addition to) #1, and into speculation that >> the change being suggested here was suspect because I hadn't carried out >> a "solid study of history". > > OK, so there was a study of history, but the resulting commit did > not interpret and reflect what's significant in the history > correctly. Sorry for mischaracterizing your mistake. > > Lets put it this way. Here is a statement: > > Since 1.6.0, people started to need to worry more about > compatibility with 1.4.4 and older. > > Now that statement, while it may be still correct, is irrelevant. > Why? > > Even if there were tons of people who still use 1.6.0 (or 1.5.3 for > that matter, which happens to be one of my favorite releases in the > era), as long as nobody uses 1.4.4 or older, we can safely remove > such a statement from our end-user facing documentation set. Some > archaeologists in us may care, but it is irrelevant to the general > public, as long as 1.4.4 or older have died out. "As continued use > of 1.4.4 by people stopped being an issue long time ago, remove the > warning about interoperability" is the only thing we need to say > about this change. We can add "that we needed to add in 1.6.0 era" > at the end but that is already too verbose. > > Please do not be one of those folks we had to deal with in the past > who for whatever reason cannot admit that they were wrong. I won't, and I think on the subject of documentation & commit messages you (as in me, in this case) have already lost the "argument" if you're having to explain what was meant by the text, which clearly should be self-contained enough to resolve any such ambiguities by itself. I was just replying to clarify what I was trying to go for in the v1, which in my mind isn't an argument *for* that version, but just an explanation. I.e. sometimes the solution is to more clearly phrase what I was going for, and sometimes it's to take another approach entirely. In in case, I we may have crossed in E-Mails, here's a re-rolled v2: https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-v2-1.1-98b6de56019-20220719T000847Z-a= varab@gmail.com/ I tried to make the dates & versions involved clear, and also to work in your preference for v2.0.0 (or possibly later) as a cut-off. It may not at all be what you had in mind, or maybe you're willing to queue it as-is, just let me know & I'll adjust it. Thanks a lot for the review, and sorry about the misunderstanding.