Re: Jonathan gives feedback --> flamewars inevitable?

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: May 5, 2012, 18:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20120505183954.GA18844@burratino>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1SLb6CXMKxRDFUbxkg56dU3=ObZPZh7XxQC3vovNnvdw@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras wrote:

> If you had said "You know, I think they have this guideline, but it's
> not really relevant, what is relevant is X" right when the topic of
> bash-completion guidelines popped up, this thread would have looked
> much different.

Ah, apparently I was still unclear.

The leading underscore is a convention. They do use it. They are thinking of moving to another convention and will probably do so.

I believe that convention is relevant to the git completion script. Not because we should blindly follow everything the bash-completion project does, but because there are reasons behind that convention, following common practices means our behavior is less surprising, and in fact I do want it to be possible to incorporate git's completion script in the bash-completion project if that's convenient.

A little changed because their proposed future namespace does not make it possible for outside contributors to make unofficial extensions and then include them as something official later without change. Maybe that's a flaw.

When I stated what I thought was (and still think is) a fact, and you decided that the best use of your time was to argue with me about that instead of talking about the consequences, yes, I was annoyed. It was a rabbit hole I shouldn't have followed; you're right. But I still don't know what I should have said instead, or how to stop it from coming up again and again.

Jonathan