From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add keyword unexpansion support to convert.c Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200704171041.46176.andyparkins@gmail.com> <"200704171803.58940.a n dyparkins"@gmail.com> <200704172012.31280.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7vy7kqlj5r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , David Lang , Andy Parkins , git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 18 17:10:55 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 1HeBnz-0007Qc-Cp for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:10:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992734AbXDRPKo (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:10:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992742AbXDRPKo (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:10:44 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:61962 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992734AbXDRPKn (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:10:43 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JGP001MG8TTY740@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:10:42 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > So what? > > > > We provide a rope with proper caveat emptor. Up to others to hang > > themselves with it if they so desire. It is not our problem anymore. > > The people will complain. On this list. And I have to check the mails > before deleting, because the Subject: does not say "I just took the rope, > ignored your caveat emptor, and now I am dead. What should I do now?". Well... in the case of keyword expansion (since this is really the contentious case here), with such a _generic_ facility to implement external filters, people will at least have the opportunity to try it. Sure they might complain that it doesn't work well, but 1) it is much easier to *understand* why it doesn't work well after experimenting with it, and 2) some people *will* be perfectly happy with something that doesn't work well but happens to just work in their own particular case. And because it now becomes a case by case issue it is much easier for us to simply provide a generic mechanism and let people figure out by themselves what works and what doesn't work instead of having philosophical discussions on the merits of keyword expansions on the list. And because people _will_ complain *anyway*, it might lead to more productive discussion if those who complain had the chance to realize what the issues really are by experience if theoretic demonstrations alone doesn't convey the problem fully. Nicolas