From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE1E0258EC1 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780298093; cv=none; b=FdvgcKKiEr6pFqCDdHP9QoIaJ8Z7VJrNMSDDf9rGMU5hiWuwItDz4Mnj6/gScpKcBSxN5WRrBm+nWyvWNMHKToCL4lCa1f3o6HTGuMN/0R/8qh74/HRFyVhIn4fOWkbI74KQx18wyyj3ZCNSNpAvitnqm3957+OieF62Ga/Na/Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780298093; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Wi5cel/TL1pH4o+SruVniERNpr2T9RbybXELQWJdfb8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=p4wfd628ACx1mRUCDiBg44iP21oP3H8jPb/fNtjCj2W+Mny6VgDSAhIyV5/FCohKr42GHILVYRwLKYyCtbhKe55yA1aqm3EhCvleAZbVRdXAlqAHu5wpA+Jh0M+bw/MQM0NhjdR4FsNpmQpg7qnXGV75DgyFEHsnok1vgZF5rxc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=aM8rmJPF; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=do9n2+yL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="aM8rmJPF"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="do9n2+yL" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D991D00245; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 03:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Jun 2026 03:14:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1780298090; x=1780384490; bh=Wi5cel/TL1 pH4o+SruVniERNpr2T9RbybXELQWJdfb8=; b=aM8rmJPFvFk6ab57heHcwNDkNN xhn79mrHUzql/XFAxSeshVpjBGNReq4Tl16z+r01kChbFkk8jXU7p2DvAdrDp0zj unOxPwz5SObpk5iwsLDjJoJNva+rL96CZgX2zHWlstksWoKrVcCD1VPYnM3T+TA/ JfmR7E6GB5P/U4PNp7ok4Y6GHY5p8FjqAA+OqfvJ6DfKrRfqOBsI+L1ZYr631i1/ rt743LP2V7d0dmNvykKvGkYHM5tW8nLA3c/QQwmbbQ1ESDjR519NUvJe3ugzyGBw dfZm0s/Q47nNV5hCG2wHOnBLLGU9PxATxVMKC752ywgXv8IXAcP9E9eSPi8w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1780298090; x=1780384490; bh=Wi5cel/TL1pH4o+SruVniERNpr2T9RbybXE LQWJdfb8=; b=do9n2+yLvVjpPgaGBIpxhY8juNm61jIZ6IKNUBs4ry8siHbBwOZ MwkPG0WyFrRuqmmUhbkbGBGbKUyi6pwSUp8tDkMA+R6dHgfKiEdW0UcV34l3pWkN d/pZUmSvG5KYfdufIoo7U5GgUPM/3ql0bq5SAX5A2Adx/kCkH9GCq1X0xbFIcToC YVfkiDr6v6elsFnv2zRcEgOeyAXg9EcaDvOryBJpwZsj6nW4RQ0HFzzhPNNLx5MD qCJpSazQgC9YSV/rsWtYIqrXbac1wmJKHvidCHLQ6Qa/tqF3vBdCsvcXenHBBNgk p5wP3XQBZiRJU/wx5LbLFZG3ZOWIX8JIY6Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTGjvkFuTOfq1UNBxcXm6+u5IirxoxNFTJ+u9UWpFgdE64H/ZyOSBCU5kg7bWj+6OI tKDgFdYylgE5a7ucy2xpnMUVjiRH3p6UmGoBhifzGeWINaWmlhX5EYkAWrQry6asEF/Fbn ctOUBet+3YNt+ryTEH20ymjfS5DyKZ6NX2Y/29WhWP5tQqCkKzbRQYscQgO4S4dsJvlWP8 VQFKA/QGPV47kg/XfxYAyrBVhT069zykqf4rTwmdT23FKVShSGq0IPIt3xt+r3W8r1bHfO C0Of5krJ4zlkMqZuNikNNaou6/xH9fNdkDf5qnhFXffr5hAOm0yvPeaDseINCSAtZ/77tm GCyPJjYZpAFVfxWRav27LPlaV0PjOOKi80vCdO8yCJ0rdx+CeKgzBQg4lYb+q9PulhnSzs c3glaUwa+LdlnyvlmdRKbpyczh5UR/vilFpvaBGCHPKTL/U9jF/Ll5mrUjJyWnaAJ117X4 WghnDxobEZaUjw28P5kBMo7C39Mv5sTyuv9a3bxU119O3EHm3Mz+PJnxtYY/D640wy94II i32eqgHgUDHTNlKDdAG461RUNSyYGrWP+2sQK8kf9uuRx6v0tmWGFvjyyfHPo2cdIr1hjA hVHZQFcg349svJh2EcRTDDiCaqP9iuP93NdT7l8sRgFv7iDHVRcGNvGnuSng X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 03:14:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com, Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] commit: remove deprecated functions In-Reply-To: <20260529083716.GE1106035@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 29 May 2026 04:37:16 -0400") References: <20260529083716.GE1106035@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 16:14:48 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jeff King writes: > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 09:00:09AM +0200, kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com wrote: > >> Topic summary: Remove deprecated comments that were slated for removal >> after Git 2.53.0. > > This looks obviously correct to me, but the whole topic made me wonder: > was it worth retaining the old names and deprecating them, versus just > removing them back then? > > Topics in flight would have needed an update then, but they did > eventually anyway. So it feels like the total amount of work done is > larger, compared to just fixing them as the topics were merged. Either > way the compiler tells us, and the adjustments themselves are small. Your alternative approach will depend on the integrator doing all the fixups at the merge time. The amount of effort required by the entire community as a whole may have been larger, but the way the rename was carried out did spread them thinner. Admittedly, with help from rerere and merge-fix mechanism, such a "fixup at the merge time" typically needs to be done only once per the other conflicting topic in flight, but still, when constructing a workflow, I try to avoid having to depend on the single bottleneck for a task that does not need to be performed by the single bottleneck, especially when the single bottleneck has other tasks that can only be done by the single bottleneck. > Not a huge deal either way, but just pondering for future such > situations. > > -Peff