From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Supporting .git/hooks/$NAME.d/* && /etc/git/hooks/$NAME.d/*
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:09:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <571FD905.6010705@xiplink.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX6CRBQ5qOBdwamqJMz+_QU-cmVfA7iLTyjOCYentjx-mw@mail.gmail.com>
On 2016-04-26 12:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> Basically you can look at patches to a project on a spectrum of:
>
> 1. You hacked something up locally
> 2. It's in someone's *.git repo as a POC
> 3. It's a third-party patch series used by a bunch of people
> 4. In an official release but documented as experimental
> 5. In an official release as a first-rate feature
>
> Something like an experimental.WHATEVER=bool flag provides #4.
But the git project already does #4 without needing a special
configuration tree. In fact, you ignored the git project's "pu" branch
entirely. Once a feature gets onto the "next" branch, it's already much
less experimental. If it needs to put the word "experimental" in its
config settings, then maybe shouldn't leave the "pu" branch in the first
place.
> I think aside from this feature just leaving these things undocumented
> really provides the worst of both worlds.
Yes, I apologize. I did not mean that things should remain
undocumented, only that if you're afraid of users harming themselves
then you're better off not documenting settings than labelling them as
experimental.
> Now you have some feature that's undocumented *because* you're not
> sure about it, but you can't ever be sure about it unless people
> actually use it, and if it's not documented at all effectively it's as
> visible as some third-party patch series. I.e. only people really
> involved in the project will ever use it.
Slapping "experimental" on the configuration only serves to muddy the
waters. Either the feature is good enough to be tried by normal users,
or it isn't. If it isn't ready for normal users, let it cook in pu (or
next) for a while longer.
Git has got on just fine without having some special designation for
not-ready-for-prime-time features, mostly because the development
process lends itself naturally to gradually exposing things as they
mature: topics move from the list to pu to next to master. (The string
"experiment" only appears 16 times in all the release notes, which I
think is something the git project can be proud of.)
To me, designating part of the config tree as "experimental" enables
sloppier practices, where a feature can be released with a bit less
effort than might otherwise be acceptable, because it's clearly marked
as experimental, and so anyone trying it out surely has the requisite
bulletproof footwear. (I don't mean to imply that you or any other git
contributor might slack off on any work you do for the project. It's
more that the ability to easily designate something as experimental
lowers the bar a bit, and makes it more tempting to release
not-quite-ready features.)
Far better to instead work on the feature until it's as ready as can be,
and release it properly.
In this particular case, for example, I think your proposed approach is
perfectly fine and does not need to be designated as "experimental" in
any way. With a reasonable "hooks.something" config variable to turn on
directory support, what you've described sounds like a great feature.
Sure, it may have bugs, it may have unintended consequences, it may not
fulfill some odd corner cases. But that's true for almost everything.
As with every other git feature, it'll be developed to the best of the
project's abilities and released. Future patches are welcome.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-26 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-22 23:51 RFC: Supporting .git/hooks/$NAME.d/* && /etc/git/hooks/$NAME.d/* Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2016-04-25 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-04-26 10:58 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2016-04-26 13:40 ` Marc Branchaud
2016-04-26 16:09 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2016-04-26 17:52 ` Christian Couder
2016-04-26 21:09 ` Marc Branchaud [this message]
2016-04-26 21:52 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=571FD905.6010705@xiplink.com \
--to=marcnarc@xiplink.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).