From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote-helpers: point at their upstream repositories Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:39:08 -0500 Message-ID: <537bbd6c1daf_a6f166b308b0@nysa.notmuch> References: <20140516084126.GB21468@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140516225228.GA3988@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5376f2ca5c90d_65b915db2f877@nysa.notmuch> <20140517062413.GA13003@sigill.intra.peff.net> <53795ef8e4023_10da88d30825@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano , Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 20 22:50:30 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 1WmqzU-0003uJ-3F for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2014 22:50:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750779AbaETUuV (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 16:50:21 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]:35575 "EHLO mail-oa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750721AbaETUuV (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2014 16:50:21 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o6so1188378oag.17 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BLeSVFArM5OP6KXY1MIP3LP6L1aMEeMDdS0leAm6qVI=; b=CaFvuNruwnOVbSlX0SYjR44ZAv12OoPwx30NTmnc6tezmO3z0Jb6L1MB8T9+3hdQiU 48DbR9x0uylBQ2s8LPNsKYlszI3Clt2yTqa57uD3EQhlv5KJ8pJpBhSYw/dZRmgiDLJp xtXyLYsjrF/BK/ehlaxDWyDf8PAjtD88cpZ8h/9q1bFgSF5FMAkHzJBCv5wcjtX2bb/E k4FaENiHoTYNM1+DwWdTRBVjy8u06r7xx37wDmuO0p8OsWdFvaPh5GrW71pEeYzFkFkw 4Doh4OfN1XUnBqGiR1qUWKJdmlox1RGhcZW8cxCzMtarT5uJRnbxxX18TcVv3F3g3Ov5 OsPw== X-Received: by 10.182.105.1 with SMTP id gi1mr46932491obb.9.1400619020414; Tue, 20 May 2014 13:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (189-211-224-40.static.axtel.net. [189.211.224.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jr2sm39739900obb.8.2014.05.20.13.50.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 May 2014 13:50:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> 2. add warning that is given every time the scripts are run and > >> give the same instruction as in README. > >> > >> 3. (optional) cripple the script to make them always fail after > >> showing the same warning as above. > > > > This is what I want, and I already sent the patches for; the scripts > > will be stubs. At this point you would have effectively removed the > > code, which what I want. > > > >> 4. Keep README and retire everything else. > > > > After you've removed the code, I don't care what you do, but I'd say you > > should remove the stubs after a long period of time. > > Let's try this in a different way, as I sense there is a > misunderstanding somewhere about your "wish". > > >> "that" does not refer to "remove them at v2.0 (unconditional)". It > >> refers to "If Felipe really wants for the removal for v2.0, I would > >> respect that". And I saw you said you did not want to disrupt v2.0. > >> > >> If the options I listed all meant removal at v2.0, then I would > >> understand your complaints, but that is not the case, so I am not > >> sure what to make of that. > > > > It is a weird choice of semantics then. You said you would "respect" my > > wish, but your proposals did not "follow" my wish. > > I understand you do not want to disrupt v2.0. My assumption of that > "not disrupting v2.0" has been "there still are git-remote-{hg,bzr} > that work just like what they had in v1.9.x, perhaps with some > enhancements and regressions you added in the meantime", and I > understood Peff's comment "If Felipe wants the removal" to mean that > kind of "disruption", i.e. "there is no git-remote-{hg,bzr} that > work.", which would be either step 3 or 4. > > But your "After you've removed the code" comment above makes me > wonder that perhaps your definition of "not disrupting" was > different from ours (which is not good or bad, just different) and > you consider that step 3. is "removal but not distupting v2.0"? > > If that is what you want in v2.0, then please say so, and I already > said I am fine with that. No, I already said I do not want the code removed from v2.0, that's why I sent patches that simply added a warning, and I specifically said those were for 2.0. However, after seeing this commit: 10e1fee (Revert "Merge branch 'fc/transport-helper-sync-error-fix'") Which is: 1) Inaccurate 2) A lie (*you* broke 2.0, not me) 3) A disservice to users I therefore change my wish for you to remove all the remote helpers code and a replace them with stubs (the patches I originally sent for post-2.0). It was a mistake from me to believe you would do the sensible thing for 2.0. So to make it clear, I now request that you do: 1) Remove all the code. Since my patches were removed from the list, here's an updated patch that applies on top of 'master' https://github.com/felipec/git/commits/up/remote/remove 2) Reapply d508e4a (Merge branch 'fc/transport-helper-sync-error-fix') Since the code in question is no longer part of v2.0, a "possible regression" that you aren't even sure of cannot be the rationale to revert this code. Your commit 10e1fee (Revert "Merge branch 'fc/transport-helper-sync-error-fix'") actively hurts the out-of-tree tools, so I'll consider a failure to re-revert a hostile action. 3) Update the release notes to mention these tools have been removed Additionally, you might want to: 4) Re-add the following release note: * "git push" via transport-helper interface (e.g. remote-hg) has been updated to allow forced ref updates in a way similar to the natively supported transports I don't know why you removed it in the first place. Clearly you pay no attention at all to these interfaces. I expect you to do at the very least 1) and 2). -- Felipe Contreras