From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] completion: remove old code Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:59:33 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1327880479-25275-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1327880479-25275-3-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20120130023642.GA14986@burratino> <7vd3a1erwf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Frans Klaver X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 30 14:59:41 2012 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 1Rrrlk-0005H1-Lp for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:59:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753002Ab2A3N7g (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:59:36 -0500 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:58550 "EHLO mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752974Ab2A3N7f (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:59:35 -0500 Received: by lagu2 with SMTP id u2so2204741lag.19 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:59:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=W09VjjvAy6VZBGPCgbakp6ZhaAd5w9kp4Tdx1rPWJwM=; b=iNYJG2w4mOahMul7rSqOwBMZ2bOjo3EzL5+5i1jGsLQ8rO74D4bc5bjFdyTXb0Qvna 4IxIQ7Vl97UBiCV7HtrB3qGd+qsfcL5c4oj4x1kpJpPYVLI1V2RSUJ+vbG5RlpEBZXWr kgg9aeGc3c0ZDWJUlQJarlF6mdcrHmsdBtqnA= Received: by 10.112.99.202 with SMTP id es10mr654152lbb.89.1327931973884; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.40.202 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:59:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Frans Klaver wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Felipe Contreras > wrote: > >> We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about >> compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of >> repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been >> migrated. > > What's not backward about that? Not all backwards compatibility issues are the same. >> This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke >> backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different >> approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be >> followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations). >> >> But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact. >> I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how >> backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I? > > As far as I know you haven't explicitly said anything about that. > There may still be a possibility that the sentence Junio quoted in his > reply could have implied a certain attitude. I already asked, but I ask again; what would be that attitude? Not caring about backwards compatibility? Then that implication would have been wrong. If you look a few lines below, you would see a change that doesn't break backwards compatibility, which proves the previous implication wrong... Not to mention previous discussions. >>> Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user >>> survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like >>> it could be scheduled for a major release of git. >> >> Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion. > > I wouldn't know about that. Apparently not everybody is happy with > applying it without further discussion. Jonathan Nieder is happy with the 'ls -1 "$d/remotes"' change, and I haven't seen anybody object it. Either way. I'm not going to discuss in this thread any more. I'll resend the patches, feel free to comment there. -- Felipe Contreras