Re: GIT - breaking backward compatibility

> I raised the following issues in my previous messages but did
> not hear many opinions [*1*].  I do not want to take it as a
> blank check from the community to do whatever I please.  So here
> is a recap.
> 
>  * Tools renaming plan calls for removal of the backward
>    compatible command names (e.g. git-fsck-cache and
>    git-update-cache) sometime in the future.  This is scheduled
>    for 0.99.8 around beginning of October.  If somebody wants
>    extended amnesty period, this can be pushed back but unless I
>    hear otherwise...
> 
>  * After reviewing the current set of commands, the following do
>    not seem to be useful anymore; Linus said he feels they can
>    go, and nobody else objected:
> 
>    git-diff-helper git-diff-stages git-export git-rev-tree
> 
>    I'd like to remove them before 1.0, and planning to do it
>    within the 0.99.8 timeframe unless I hear otherwise.
> 
>  * After Brian Gerst posted a patch to show 'modified' files in
>    ls-files [*2*], there was a brief discussion to change the
>    tagged output markings to make them more readable, but
>    neither Cogito nor StGIT seems to use tagged output.  I am
>    currently thinking about removing '-t' altogether.
> 
>    Again, unless I hear otherwise, I'd like to remove it within
>    the 0.99.8 timeframe.
> 
> 
> BTW, independent from any of these I'll be doing a 0.99.7a
> soonish for "fixes only" on top of 0.99.7.
> 
> 
> [Footnote]
> 
> *1* Well, Pasky indicated he does not like some of the terms in
> the glossary in his recent Cogito release announcement, but that
> was unfortunately after the fact.
> 
> *2* I haven't taken this patch not because I do not think
> showing 'modified' file is a bad idea but because showing cache
> dirty files as 'modified' did not feel right to me.  I think
> doing what 'git-update-index --refresh' does without actually
> refreshing the cache status bits would be the right way to go.