From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old
version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script.
Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the
standard used for other parts of Git.
Most likely they are using repositories that they started using with an
old version, but at the same time, most likely they are happily using more
modern version exactly because the rest of Git still support it, except
for the completion script after _this_ patch breaks the support.
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old
version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script.
Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the
standard used for other parts of Git.
What attitude? I am simply stating a fact. How much percentage of
people do you think still have .git/remotes around? How many people do
you think have clones more than 3 years old? And how many of these
people would complain if remotes were not properly completed for these
repos?
I doubt anybody would have complained, but I guess we would never
know, because I already proposed a solution that would work for them
and only uses a *single* line of code, unlike the current 40 ones.
I don't see what is the problem with the attitude of sending a patch
to remove code that most likely nobody cares about (neither you or I
have numbers on this), and then finding an alternative when people do
care about it.
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
From: Frans Klaver <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old
version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script.
Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the
standard used for other parts of Git.
What attitude?
This attitude:
I am simply stating a fact. How much percentage of
people do you think still have .git/remotes around? How many people do
you think have clones more than 3 years old? And how many of these
people would complain if remotes were not properly completed for these
repos?
I doubt anybody would have complained, but I guess we would never
know, because I already proposed a solution that would work for them
and only uses a *single* line of code, unlike the current 40 ones.
I don't see what is the problem with the attitude of sending a patch
to remove code that most likely nobody cares about (neither you or I
have numbers on this), and then finding an alternative when people do
care about it.
I don't think Junio actually meant an "attitude", but just your angle
of approach (== attitude) on backwards compatibility.
Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user
survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like
it could be scheduled for a major release of git.
Cheers,
Frans
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Frans Klaver [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
OK, maybe some people use it, but most likely they are using an old
version of git, and thus an old version of the completion script.
Please adjust your attitude about backward compatibility to match the
standard used for other parts of Git.
What attitude?
This attitude:
quoted
I am simply stating a fact. How much percentage of
people do you think still have .git/remotes around? How many people do
you think have clones more than 3 years old? And how many of these
people would complain if remotes were not properly completed for these
repos?
I doubt anybody would have complained, but I guess we would never
know, because I already proposed a solution that would work for them
and only uses a *single* line of code, unlike the current 40 ones.
I don't see what is the problem with the attitude of sending a patch
to remove code that most likely nobody cares about (neither you or I
have numbers on this), and then finding an alternative when people do
care about it.
I don't think Junio actually meant an "attitude", but just your angle
of approach (== attitude) on backwards compatibility.
We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about
compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of
repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been
migrated.
This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke
backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different
approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be
followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations).
But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact.
I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how
backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I?
Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user
survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like
it could be scheduled for a major release of git.
Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion.
Nobody is proposing to break backwards compatibility--as you can see,
I already proposed a simple solution that should work.
And FTR, when I wrote 'We don't need to check for GIT_DIR/remotes,
right? This was removed long time ago." I clearly wasn't sure if
.git/remotes was still used or not, after Jonathan Nieder replied, I
checked the source code of remotes.c, and I found that it was still
supported, so I wrote the proposed alternative.
--
Felipe Contreras
From: Frans Klaver <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about
compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of
repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been
migrated.
What's not backward about that?
This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke
backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different
approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be
followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations).
But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact.
I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how
backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I?
As far as I know you haven't explicitly said anything about that.
There may still be a possibility that the sentence Junio quoted in his
reply could have implied a certain attitude.
quoted
Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user
survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like
it could be scheduled for a major release of git.
Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion.
I wouldn't know about that. Apparently not everybody is happy with
applying it without further discussion.
Cheers,
Frans
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:52:53
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Frans Klaver [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
We are not talking about backwards compatibility; we are talking about
compatibility of remotes completion of the bash completion script of
repositories more than 3 years old with remotes that haven't been
migrated.
What's not backward about that?
Not all backwards compatibility issues are the same.
quoted
This barely resembles the git-foo -> 'git foo', which truly broke
backwards compatibility, and at the time I proposed many different
approaches to deal with these type of problems, which seem to be
followed now (although probably not because of my recommendations).
But this has nothing to do with _attitude_; I am merely stating fact.
I have never expressed any opinion or attitude with respect to how
backwards compatibility should be handled in this thread, have I?
As far as I know you haven't explicitly said anything about that.
There may still be a possibility that the sentence Junio quoted in his
reply could have implied a certain attitude.
I already asked, but I ask again; what would be that attitude? Not
caring about backwards compatibility? Then that implication would have
been wrong.
If you look a few lines below, you would see a change that doesn't
break backwards compatibility, which proves the previous implication
wrong... Not to mention previous discussions.
quoted
quoted
Maybe numbers for this could be generated from the next git user
survey. If numbers justify this change, maybe this or something like
it could be scheduled for a major release of git.
Maybe, but I doubt this issue hardly deserves much discussion.
I wouldn't know about that. Apparently not everybody is happy with
applying it without further discussion.
Jonathan Nieder is happy with the 'ls -1 "$d/remotes"' change, and I
haven't seen anybody object it.
Either way. I'm not going to discuss in this thread any more. I'll
resend the patches, feel free to comment there.
--
Felipe Contreras