From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:27:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1219753622.7107.54.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <7vprnzt7d5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1219664940.9583.42.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <7vy72kek6y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, users@kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 26 14:31:23 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KXxhh-0007w5-RE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:31:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754311AbYHZMaS (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:30:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754333AbYHZMaR (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:30:17 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:34945 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754311AbYHZMaQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:30:16 -0400 Received: from pmac.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:20d:93ff:fe7a:3f2c]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1KXxgb-00051J-0Y; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:30:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: <7vy72kek6y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 16:41 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Well, this was partly my fault, as I did not make it clear in this part > that beating the horse that has been dead for two years is not a > productive way to spend out time. I however did, in the part David did > not quote, try to make it clear: Do you have a reference to the previous discussion? In particular, any part of it where any _real_ benefits of breaking compatibility are given. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation