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.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

I personally think there is nothing wrong if Porcelain and plumbing use
different languages, by the way.

Do you expect such a clean separation? That a given command is either
plumbing or porcelain but never both? If not, then a command might
want to emit different output depending upon context. Perhaps an
environment variable, along the lines of how one sets locale on Unix,
could indicate to a git command whether it running as plumbing or not.

Just a thought.

j.