From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44ADC1F461 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726571AbfH1PHB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:07:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:55887 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726394AbfH1PHB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:07:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E635880FB1; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:06:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=2ylYT1Gc5zngYu7womSDiveBIDU=; b=GFALns W86uZ312PYWDGMRsVVDPcWAaS+H/mgxQaIF9abxNRv8RTRU4t6SbzS+oBl50OWMD 9lU5X+WH79ExMPt3Kr1hXt1VkGNjK0X7e2yTSv6r5XiJHwsZzEFUIYLfYfrqtExB YKKX5V1hY0EhfoJA6iium1VXVCMTGhSMer2w0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=MsrXbt8JIXdF55J6VinrP1+gyBnY36DF OFJNASkzBsBWQm0RDYEqeIscoOXfuFkO4/PTfnarg//az1Oj4p5pbdfbC77DgK8E pJxIc1jEk6W1uui0tW0WCr+4bY4Gnpv2FETSkh6QYg1++jzDo4yTg3T5euw4Vhbu 1DCfxBfyv3I= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A7280FB0; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:06:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E480280FAB; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:06:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Elijah Newren , Eric Wong , Git Mailing List , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Lars Schneider , Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: RFC: Proposing git-filter-repo for inclusion in git.git References: <20190823030059.47ftwfne6y436e5j@dcvr> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:06:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:09:21 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 79AA1508-C9A5-11E9-9C42-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > FWIW if anybody cares about my opinion: I would be totally fine with > integrating git-filter-repo into git.git, have it there for a major > version or two, then patch `git filter-branch` to spew out a deprecation > warning, and then remove that latter command a major version (or two) > later. Yup, that's just the usual deprecate then delete sequence. The compatibility wrapper brought up in the discussion earlier would be a big plus ;-)