Re: [PATCH] remote-helpers: point at their upstream repositories

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 19, 2014, 19:01 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqegzp1tl7.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <53795ef8e4023_10da88d30825@nysa.notmuch>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>   2. add warning that is given every time the scripts are run and
>>      give the same instruction as in README.
>> 
>>   3. (optional) cripple the script to make them always fail after
>>      showing the same warning as above.
>
> This is what I want, and I already sent the patches for; the scripts
> will be stubs. At this point you would have effectively removed the
> code, which what I want.
>  
>>   4. Keep README and retire everything else.
>
> After you've removed the code, I don't care what you do, but I'd say you
> should remove the stubs after a long period of time.

Let's try this in a different way, as I sense there is a misunderstanding somewhere about your "wish".

Show 10 quoted lines

>> "that" does not refer to "remove them at v2.0 (unconditional)".  It
>> refers to "If Felipe really wants for the removal for v2.0, I would
>> respect that".  And I saw you said you did not want to disrupt v2.0.
>> 
>> If the options I listed all meant removal at v2.0, then I would
>> understand your complaints, but that is not the case, so I am not
>> sure what to make of that.
>
> It is a weird choice of semantics then. You said you would "respect" my
> wish, but your proposals did not "follow" my wish.

I understand you do not want to disrupt v2.0. My assumption of that "not disrupting v2.0" has been "there still are git-remote-{hg,bzr} that work just like what they had in v1.9.x, perhaps with some enhancements and regressions you added in the meantime", and I understood Peff's comment "If Felipe wants the removal" to mean that kind of "disruption", i.e. "there is no git-remote-{hg,bzr} that work.", which would be either step 3 or 4.

But your "After you've removed the code" comment above makes me wonder that perhaps your definition of "not disrupting" was different from ours (which is not good or bad, just different) and you consider that step 3. is "removal but not distupting v2.0"?

If that is what you want in v2.0, then please say so, and I already said I am fine with that.