From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20080828215907.GE27867@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20080828090421.GQ10360@machine.or.cz> <18219E52-E56F-43D9-B28D-0CC74E225CC5@cs.indiana.edu> <7BC51BEC-E230-48C5-BD3E-2CECE3C7FC98@cs.indiana.edu> <20080828195211.GA3545@mithlond.arda.local> <4B9831F7-3CB8-49CB-A1DB-111481A271FE@cs.indiana.edu> <20080828212346.GA27867@coredump.intra.peff.net> <1C144B19-DA21-4CB4-B872-C1F154B031CF@cs.indiana.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Teemu Likonen , Linus Torvalds , Petr Baudis , Kristian H??gsberg , Matthias Kestenholz , Steven Rostedt , Ulrich Windl , Andi Kleen , Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , David Woodhouse , git@vger.kernel.org To: Perry Wagle X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 29 00:00:20 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 1KYpXP-0003yS-QA for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756243AbYH1V7O (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756193AbYH1V7O (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:14 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3035 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755908AbYH1V7K (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 8217 invoked by uid 111); 28 Aug 2008 21:59:09 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:09 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:59:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1C144B19-DA21-4CB4-B872-C1F154B031CF@cs.indiana.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:41:52PM -0700, Perry Wagle wrote: >>> But, my problem is not git vs git, but the slap-dash way >>> upward compatibility was broken and the "water over the dam" slippery >>> slope rationalizations that refuse to consider reverting. "You" will >>> do >>> it again in the future since you are declaring success here. And >>> "you" >>> have likely done it in the past 6 months. >> >> I don't think Junio is declaring success. In fact, I think he has sent >> several messages saying (paraphrasing of course): > > I did not name anyone, and put "you" in quotes to try to not even imply I > was pointing at one person. Several people have declared success, but > Junio wasn't one of them. I think (?) that he was just the unwilling > gunman. 8) Sorry, I thought you meant "the git community has put these bugs into git" in the past 6 months. And I don't think that is true. > I now have to TEST to find those crazy backwards-incompatibility bugs > before I can upgrade us to 1.6.0. To test, I have to try to imagine what > I and others were assuming about git. And this episode means that I can't > make any assumptions about the sanity of any changes since March, which is > the version I'm thinking of upgrading. > > But note that THIS upward compatibility bug has been declared to not be a > bug. Will any others receive the same stamp? > > So please put on your engineer hat, and stop talking about "specious > claims" and hurting feelings. My engineer hat _is_ on. Here is the logic that led to my use of the phrase "specious claims": - you are claiming that there are backwards incompatibility changes lurking in git (or at least that is what I believe you to mean) - there has been _one_ such problem, and the person responsible for vetting such changes has solicited suggestions for doing better in the future. I don't think that is indicative of a pattern of such changes. - But let's say you have lost some faith in the git development process due to _this_ bug. But let's look at the history of this bug. It has been discussed several times for the past 2 years, along with a mention in the release notes several versions ago. It was not a surprise to anybody who has been developing git. So yes, maybe there _are_ other bugs just like it lurking. But wouldn't it stand to reason that those bugs have _also_ been discussed and mentioned in the release notes, or that the developers would know about them? In other words, I can see you losing enough faith to say "wow, the git developers don't communicate very well and I need to vet their changes and notes more carefully". I don't think it is reasonable to say that there are likely to be other, totally unknown backwards incompatible changes. So 1. I find your claim that such bugs exist to have little evidence to back it up. 2. As an engineer, I have seen evidence of one problem (insufficient communication) but not of another (introduction of incompatibilities without on-list discussion). So I would choose to focus my resources on fixing the problem I have seen. > Heck, I even got Linus himself to ask if us people were on drugs, and > I didn't take it personally. At least I'm saying something that can > be disputed, and not ad hominem like Linus. 8) Sorry, but I'm not impressed by your getting Linus to yell at you. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. :) > How to better notify them is to do it on a major release, like Git 2.0. > THEN, they expect upward compatibility to break. Now that _is_ a reasonable suggestion. This change _did_ wait until the jump to 1.6.0, which we thought of as a major version jump (just as 1.4 to 1.5 introduced a few minor but documented changes). I don't think there is a plan for "git 2.0" short of serious incompatibilities in the repo format (i.e., you can't use 2.x tools on 1.x repos and vice versa). So perhaps our numbering should be more emphatic. -Peff