From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:29:14 -0800 Message-ID: <7vprhjgr6t.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vk57ridyx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: david@lang.hm X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 16 01:31:01 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LYrNv-0004tx-4I for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:30:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754364AbZBPA3W (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754268AbZBPA3W (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:22 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:47658 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754079AbZBPA3V (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C2C9A4E5; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 209BB9A4DD; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:29:15 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (david@lang.hm's message of "Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:38:36 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DA286060-FBC0-11DD-A582-0433C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: david@lang.hm writes: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >>>> So you have to set a config variable. Big deal. > > the dashed names were the same way, but they definantly were a big deal. Dscho, why do you think you saw the message you are responding to? If it were not a big deal, I wouldn't have bothered.