From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: 'git config' vs 'git repo-config' Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 01:47:33 -0800 Message-ID: <7v8xfetft6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Marco Costalba" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 04 10:47:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HDdyG-0003yo-Q1 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:47:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752210AbXBDJrg (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:47:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752218AbXBDJrf (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:47:35 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtai15.cox.net ([68.230.241.44]:65292 "EHLO fed1rmmtao102.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752210AbXBDJrf (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:47:35 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070204094734.OJRX1306.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:47:34 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id KMna1W0011kojtg0000000; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:47:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Marco Costalba's message of "Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:38:36 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Marco Costalba" writes: > I've seen that 'git repo-config' has been renamed 'git config', but > old name is still available for back compatibility. Exactly. While I do not think qgit uses them, fsck-objects and init-db also got shorter-and-sweeter synonyms. > Do you plan to remove it in a near future? Not me personally. The recent shorter-and-sweeter synonyms are too young to kick out their original names. We probably should wait for at least 6 months, preferrably longer, after the first major release that introduced them. > Probably you already now why I'm asking this ;-) No. But we should certainly draw up deprecation/removal schedule. It simply could be "never" ;-).