Re: [RFC variant 2 of 2] "needs update" considered harmful

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 20, 2008, 19:29 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4p6k73s2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0807201435450.3305@eeepc-johanness>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
>> Scripts need to be modified for the reorganization anyway,
>
> No.  They do not, if the 1st variant is applied.

I think Pasky's point is that people who did not bother updating their scripts with PATH=$(git --exec-path):$PATH as described in the deprecation notice when we went 1.5.4 now have to do so.

But if they did, they have to update again. The more elaborate variant avoids that, at the expense of different wordings between Porcelain and plumbing.

I personally think there is nothing wrong if Porcelain and plumbing use different languages, by the way. It seems that the general concensus will be to split the Porcelain and the plumbing manuals into separate volumes targetted for different audiences, and it is more important to keep the plumbing output stable as part of an established API than making the same thing called using the same wording in different languages.