From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:19:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] completion: remove old code
Message-ID: <CAH6sp9Of2rT4ESMYj9kC2NPtapsN58X3A0FpHTTZO-kSqpb-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s2j+qotu8Fb-1qq9bqHqt+ZF877YzZFXHiMo7Z_BGzTMA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old
>>> version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script.
>>
>> Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the
>> standard used for other parts of Git.
>
> What attitude?

This attitude:

> I am simply stating a fact. How much percentage of
> people do you think still have .git/remotes around? How many people do
> you think have clones more than 3 years old? And how many of these
> people would complain if remotes were not properly completed for these
> repos?
>
> I doubt anybody would have complained, but I guess we would never
> know, because I already proposed a solution that would work for them
> and only uses a *single* line of code, unlike the current 40 ones.
>
> I don't see what is the problem with the attitude of sending a patch
> to remove code that most likely nobody cares about (neither you or I
> have numbers on this), and then finding an alternative when people do
> care about it.

I don't think Junio actually meant an "attitude", but just your angle
of approach (== attitude) on backwards compatibility.

Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user
survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like
it could be scheduled for a major release of git.

Cheers,
Frans