Re: [PATCH 03/26] t1400: Pass a legitimate <newvalue> to update command

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 11, 2014, 20:06 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa9cwpkiw.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <531E30D7.40208@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> It seems to me that "-z" input will nearly always be machine-generated,
> so there is not much reason to accept the empty string as shorthand for
> zeros.  So I think that my version of the rules, being simpler to
> explain, is a slight improvement.  But your version is already out in
> the wild, so backwards-compatibility is also a consideration, even
> though it is rather a fine point in a rather unlikely usage (why use
> update rather than delete to delete a reference?).
>
> I don't know.  I'm willing to rewrite the code to go back to your rules,
> or rewrite the documentation to describe my rules.
>
> Neutral bystanders *cough*Junio*cough*, what do you prefer?

I may be misremembering things, but your first sentence quoted above was exactly my reaction while reviewing the original change, and I might have even raised that as an issue myself, saying something like "consistency across values is more important than type-saving in a machine format".

Since nobody else were raising the issue back then, however, we are stuck with the interface. I am not against deprecating and removing the support for it in the longer term, though.