From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: deprecate using "" as boolean value false. Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: <7vskzzaoop.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080211082216.e9212310.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Sixt , Pierre Habouzit , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Couder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 11 09:22:29 2008 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 1JOTvk-0007Jb-Gi for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:22:24 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752716AbYBKIVt (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752642AbYBKIVt (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:49 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:34294 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752566AbYBKIVt (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:49 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97C74F82; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C334EFF; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:21:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20080211082216.e9212310.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (Christian Couder's message of "Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:22:16 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Why do you call this a "fix", when the only effect of it is breaking people's existing setups? Wouldn't a set of proper fixes to the config parsing callback functions solve all the issues without having any downsides? I think you are wasting both of our times. You could be doing the real fix instead. Or I could be spending time on it, instead of repeating to you how mistaken this approach is. So far I've seen and queued only two usable fixes since that [Janitor] request. Maybe I should have ignored all this discussion in this thread and spent my time on doing the Janitorial work. The reason I joined the thread was that I hoped that I could save people like _you_ from wasting _your_ time in the discussion, instead of making better use of it by doing audits and fixes. Grrr.