Re: [RFC variant 2 of 2] "needs update" considered harmful

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

Scripts need to be modified for the reorganization anyway,

No.  They do not, if the 1st variant is applied.

I think Pasky's point is that people who did not bother updating their
scripts with PATH=$(git --exec-path):$PATH as described in the deprecation
notice when we went 1.5.4 now have to do so.

But if they did, they have to update again.  The more elaborate variant
avoids that, at the expense of different wordings between Porcelain and
plumbing.

I personally think there is nothing wrong if Porcelain and plumbing use
different languages, by the way.  It seems that the general concensus will
be to split the Porcelain and the plumbing manuals into separate volumes
targetted for different audiences, and it is more important to keep the
plumbing output stable as part of an established API than making the same
thing called using the same wording in different languages.