Re: [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible

[david@lang.hm]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, david@lang.hm wrote:
>
>> please be careful with the term 'deprecated', just becouse you would do
>> something a different way doesn't make it 'deprecated', that term should
>> only be used for features that are on their way out of the product, but
>> haven't been removed yet.
>
> It is not deprecated because I do not like it.  Actually, I am pretty
> indifferent about the pushing into a non-bare repository.
>
> It is deprecated because a lot of people active in the Git community spend
> a real lot of time explaining to a whole bunch of new users on IRC and
> recently even on this list why their pushing into a non-bare repository
> does not work, and why their suggestions how to solve the issue does not
> work either.

if it is the correct thing to do with some workloads, it's not being 
deprecated. if it was deprecated then it is a capability that would be 
scheduled for complete removal, and nobody should ever use. not just the 
case where it needs to be used carefully, and you are putting in a warning 
about it.

David Lang