Re: [PATCH 2/3] completion: remove old code

From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2012, 12:21 UTC
Message-ID: <CAH6sp9PfVTTNL218syf-MS465M+sP4E8eVxuVCHZC0geE3ezfg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3a05dZqOqpDFDnWQ_C03EODgeP1eRhko-Mc8OjGXj6FQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about
> compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of
> repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been
> migrated.

What's not backward about that?

Show 8 quoted lines

> This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke
> backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different
> approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be
> followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations).
>
> But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact.
> I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how
> backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I?

As far as I know you haven't explicitly said anything about that. There may still be a possibility that the sentence Junio quoted in his reply could have implied a certain attitude.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> 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.
>
> Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion.

I wouldn't know about that. Apparently not everybody is happy with applying it without further discussion.

Cheers, Frans