Re: Deprecate git-fetch-pack?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2007, 00:48 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4pftip42.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711101752490.29952@iabervon.org>

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Now that git-fetch is in C, built in, and doing the fetch-pack in the same 
> process, the normal usage patterns don't involve actually executing 
> git-fetch-pack. Can we deprecate it at this point, or it is plausibly 
> being used by scripts? As it is now, I'm not entirely confidant that the 
> tests in t5500 won't be fooled by git-fetch working even with 
> git-fetch-pack being broken in various ways, which should be fixed if we 
> want to keep it.
>
> We also might as well deprecate peek-remote now that it's a synonym for 
> ls-remote.

Especially because git-fetch is no longer as hackable as it used to be, and because people may still find special needs that can be hacked up with direct access to low level transports from the script more easily than going down to the C level, I'd rather wait and see for a cycle or two to decide. There is no strong reason to drop it, is there?

As to peek-remote, ls-remote over the native transport is a synonym so I do not think anybody doing the scripting would have problem doing s/peek-/ls-/ to their script, but again I do not see a heavy maintenance burden to keep the synonym, yet.