Re: [PATCH] "not uptodate" changed to "has local changes"
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- May 17, 2008, 18:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0805171939540.30431@racer>
- In-Reply-To
- <bd6139dc0805170912w14b7894fxfebe15c14e4c44ef@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Steven Walter <stevenrwalter@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > With this dedication to backwards-compatibility, we'll be at Windows > > Vista quality in no time.
That is silly at best, especially given that Vista is _not_ backwards-compatible. Not to mention that it is not forkable, because it is not Open Source.
Show 6 quoted lines
> I very much agree here, given the nature of scripts (that is, being very > easy to update), I think we should try not to be too strict in > backwards-compatibility or we'll lose the flexibility that is very much > needed when developing a Good Product (tm) As long as such compatibility > breaking changes are marked (in BIG LETTERS) in the changelog/release > notes I think that would be a 'sacrifice' we should consider making.
Had you (one of our GSoc students) not replied, I would not even have bothered to say anything.
But I strongly disagree with the notion that it is okay to fsck with old-timers (who would be harmed by breaking backwards-incompatibility, and nobody else), especially given that it is mostly old-timers who turned Git into the Good Product(tm) it is.
Ciao, Dscho