Re: backwards compatibility, was Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] Introduce config variable "diff.primer"
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 26, 2009, 11:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090126111605.GB19993@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901261154330.14855@racer>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Just a reminder: we are very conservative when it comes to breaking > backwards compatibility. For example, people running (but not upgrading) > gitweb who want to upgrade Git may rightfully expect their setups not to > be broken for a long time, if ever. > > So your mentioning gitweb using "git diff" precludes all kind of cute > games, methinks.
Are you aware that gitweb no longer calls "git diff", exactly because of problems caused by calling a porcelain from a script?
I don't want to break existing setups, either. But at some point you have to say "this is porcelain, so don't rely on there not being any user-triggered effects in its behavior". If porcelain is cast in stone, then what is the point in differentiating plumbing from porcelain?
And when the line is blurred (as I think it is in several places), then it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. What is the benefit, and what is the likelihood and extent of harm?
Show 6 quoted lines
> And please no "anybody who would do this and that would be nuts" excuses: > if you want to change something fundamental like this, _you_ have to > defend it. > > It is not acceptable to just shout out what you want and expect those > affected negatively to do the impact analysis for you.
This message is addressed to me, but I don't know exactly what you think I'm proposing, failing to defend, or failing to do an impact analysis for. Or are you speaking generally of the "you" who submit patches?
-Peff