From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A661FF32 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:47:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935006AbdJQVrL (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:47:11 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:55980 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S934943AbdJQVrK (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:47:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 18686 invoked by uid 109); 17 Oct 2017 21:47:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:47:11 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27601 invoked by uid 111); 17 Oct 2017 21:47:14 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:47:14 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:47:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:47:08 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Thomas Gummerer Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page Message-ID: <20171017214708.ixc2hnut2virarzh@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20171005200049.GF30301@hank> <20171005201029.4173-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20171017041405.eavuutzgzgs4ppk2@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171017214515.GG15399@hank> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171017214515.GG15399@hank> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > > it from being in the synopsis entirely? > > I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save". > I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually > officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out > in the release notes. Right, my thinking was that it would still be documented in the manpage, just lower down. And that would probably say something like "save is a historical synonym for push, except that it differs in these ways...". > OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't > cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily > visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation? I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the feature that must take a while. -Peff