From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-am: error out when seeing -b/--binary Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:31:03 -0700 Message-ID: <7v62e8la9y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20120312064855.GB16820@burratino> <20120312085820.GA11569@1wt.eu> <20120312152004.GB9380@kroah.com> <20120312152453.GB12405@1wt.eu> <87aa3l4vqq.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120312165703.GB18791@burratino> <7vvcm9snko.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87399dpk48.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120312215607.GB11362@burratino> <874ntto4t8.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120312222227.GC11362@burratino> <87fwdcldqj.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Willy Tarreau , Greg KH , Ben Hutchings , , , To: Jonathan Nieder , Thomas Rast X-From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 13 18:31:31 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S7VZJ-0005QG-A7 for glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758899Ab2CMRbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:31:11 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:39102 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758650Ab2CMRbG (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:31:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF4D7C2A; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:date:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=08aFGA/guUWv9Xt/LF+s70EzLPs=; b=a2F3pb T0gBYO0iAYv4ohFhSToz5E0adDkkRmvoID3p4puPbRXuGd/RjFV2oB3cp8yiayU5 TxPE10fJKaMUUjHn/HNiAj9wzyHp65aJl+x/1Kk2kVWFkxd1nBBqTC6gqs89iaZw R9wO/eLQrqRRXRtH9rRId7xSyunQdOtWAUFxE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:date:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=JNDdZqexnFIUTD4BeRAjIaUGhx/QaJgU /X4HQNg8eNlhFoy+VkzHX7Xqr+gny8fVfurIujUBcOA5bbmVp5GnYLQi/L6UxrJ/ Vnd8ekfNsseVzDtf6cBOTZwjM6WOP+4+yB1C0dxg5sAe4GalolCPjdXI0PrFK7sV DHTY6uRLTys= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F487C29; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18A9D7C27; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87fwdcldqj.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:31:00 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4FBD02C8-6D32-11E1-8CC3-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thomas Rast writes: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> --binary) >> : ;; >> -b) >> gettextln >&2 "The -b option (a no-op short for --binary) was removed in 1.7.10." >> die "$(gettext "Please adjust your scripts.")" >> ;; >> >> Mentioning deprecation in 1.6.0 in the message left me uneasy because >> we never actually did anything to actively deprecate the option; it >> just has not been needed since 1.4.3 and we stopped advertising it in >> the manpage in 1.6.0. So I don't like the implication of "this is all >> right because we told you so" --- on the contrary, it is "in practice >> nobody seems to be using this option and we hope nobody will notice >> when we take it away". > > Hmm, I had an alternate patch ready in the morning, but Junio beat us to > it and applied the old one to master. I really don't think it is a good idea to avoid mentioning 1.6.0, at which we *removed* description of the option in our manual pages and from the "git am -h" help message. How much more active deprecation would a user want? To put it another way, think what your answer would be when somebody sees the message and says "eh? all of a sudden it was removed?". Wouldn't you tell him "At 1.6.0 we deprecated it and stopped advertising it"? Why not give that answer upfront? Especially when you think "in practice nobody seems to be using this" is true?