Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 14, 2013, 16:59 UTC
Message-ID: <7vd2w23k7k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5451mMG-U8qETAy_6pRJLbtOjtAPhbapVA9RLbrrS2yy7rCw@mail.gmail.com>

Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee
>> that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain,
>> then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition
>> will not hold.
>
> Does the impossibility of asserting that no-one will complain put this
> in the 'too hard' bucket?

Basically, yes.  "Cannot be done without UI regression."

It could be a Git 2.0 item, if you plan the transition right, though.

> The implication here is that a relatively small number of people will
> be inconvenienced by needing to specify extra flags/set up an alias.
> Compare this to the many for whom the expected behaviour is now
> default, and we have a net win.

We take backward compatibility a lot more seriously; it is not even a democracy.

"Net win" does not mean an iota. Even if "small number" is 47 and large majority is 4 million, it does not change the fact that you are breaking things these 47 people have depended on working in an expected (the "expected" does not have to be "intuitive" in this sentence; what counts more is that it is the way they are accustomed to) way and introducing a UI regression.