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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 A8C5D1F87F for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 09:30:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727956AbeKUUEO (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 15:04:14 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f67.google.com ([209.85.208.67]:41096 "EHLO mail-ed1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726620AbeKUUEO (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 15:04:14 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f67.google.com with SMTP id z28so4293620edi.8 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:30:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=cMZ6P1xMoeNSLXE9KKivzT8SiIx53h6b3qMxuaEc1n8=; b=a1jrBv4LKkI0+vbJ29mifhFVfeEq9L4q5uYSMwx/69qSWXWWftRw3oY03TMcQHhLsm xtAOMEkfS+0vkwjcw7jSTg1PpdtQarIJIzrRC6Mo2qq6eep2Nph6+re5ZcH+6fBWmKW2 irfP+cJ2upLvBI2V8f0iD9nAJwqLxayimrRHrhtJElQEefAw1hZ827a1Yrq5Da1zSuJp W+5rMicRjydwzsyHHtUiT6yA4z6vgZluMP9M+qpvo6z6JGUsquC63sNVAdI5CPf/F3Zf jkS2wEkvHXMUS6lFdPEND9ynySsJMpSl6lIKIMeTQWjLcdw1tvmh/XkFhz2rT8oddjXG Za6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=cMZ6P1xMoeNSLXE9KKivzT8SiIx53h6b3qMxuaEc1n8=; b=fc+iMMwZfmZTyDV+bf/b1gK9lP6Y54Uc45HMP6jI+VR36PpFu+WXAvhsnuBLbpIFHJ QOw+TeQZuVNPPcxBVQ+NI/HrPpNgmfPMMIf+2OgQZGnmmh3RLNqUNDwpPbDlHQhbpb2Q hF+MF/JTf8di+Fpu8mkqFoXkCvmaJAoj10nbO8SXJ2VS++pwGGhzNGAqA3dKILV13xkh b5TLD/DuDpzEl/kSapDUqqdVmSeOJoSV01APXjMkJKTRDOol2PofudLPTkdXvmD1FdRj P1Qhkn3Bc6DF/sdGDpKfkgOyinoaGllyD5M3vwhN8D1E2XC6Blmp/B/rABMOSR/pf2k9 UY1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWake0+PC4LIa7cT/vVxoinyNoP7r+hCa6QIYX7lbJv7rS9z9Hf0 MmaRuYonUjLrIQm+j+KLC2g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Xl1daVj6rkcTj764chDCavJAYWlg3/bo+chK+OaIGqB+BJDN8NGJvSID1m450PZLPoQVgOMg== X-Received: by 2002:a50:a399:: with SMTP id s25mr5253594edb.1.1542792628627; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:30:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (ip545586d2.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl. [84.85.134.210]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g31sm5583758eda.96.2018.11.21.01.30.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:30:26 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Junio C Hamano , Ben Peart , git@vger.kernel.org, pclouds@gmail.com, Ben Peart , jonathantanmy@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] index: offer advice for unknown index extensions References: <20181010155938.20996-1-peartben@gmail.com> <20181113003817.GA170017@google.com> <20181113003938.GC170017@google.com> <20181120060920.GA144753@google.com> <20181120061544.GF144753@google.com> <87sgzwyu94.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20181121010309.GE149929@google.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux testing (buster); Emacs 25.2.2; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <20181121010309.GE149929@google.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87o9aizsjz.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> This series has a strong smell of pushing back by the >> toolsmiths who refuse to promptly upgrade to help their users, and >> that is why I do not feel entirely happy with this series. > > Last reply, I promise. :) > > This sentence might have the key to the misunderstanding. Let me say > a little more about where this showed up in the internal deployment > here, to clarify things a little. > > At Google we deploy snapshots of the "next" branch approximately > weekly so that we can find problems early before they affect a > published release. We rely on the ability to roll back quickly when a > problem is discovered, and we might care more about compatibility than > some others because of that. > > A popular tool within Google has a bundled copy of Git (also a > snapshot of the "next" branch, but from a few weeks prior) and when we > deployed Git with the EOIE and IEOT extensions, users of that tool > very quickly reported the mysterious message. > > That said, the maintainers of that tool did not complain at all, so > hopefully I can allay your worries about toolsmiths pushing back. > Once the problem reached my attention (a few days later than I would > have liked it to), the Git team at Google knew that we could not roll > back and were certainly alarmed about what that means about our > ability to cope with other problems should we need to. But we were > able to quickly update that popular tool --- no issue. > > Instead, we ran into a number of other users running into the same > problem, when sharing repositories between machines using sshfs, etc. > That, plus the aforementioned inability to roll back Git if we need > to, meant that this was a serious issue so we quickly addressed it in > the internal installation. > > In general, we haven't had much trouble getting people to use Git > 2.19.1 or newer. So the problem here does not have to do with users > being slow to upgrade. > > Instead, it's simply that upgrading Git should not cause the older, > widely deployed version of Git to complain about the repositories it > acts on. That's a recipe for difficult debugging situations, it can > lead to people upgrading less quickly and reporting bugs later, and > all in all it's a bad situation to be in. I've used tools like > Subversion that would upgrade repositories so they are unusable by the > previous version and experienced all of these problems. > > So I consider it important *to Git upstream* to handle this well in > the Git 2.20 release. We can flip the default soon after, even as > soon as 2.21. > > Moreover, I am not the only one who ran into this --- e.g. from [1], > 2018-10-19: > > 17:10 jrnieder: Yes, I noticed that annoyance myself. ;) > 17:11 Yeah, I saw that message a few times and was slightly > annoyed as well. > > Now, a meta point. Throughout this discussion, I have been hoping for > some acknowledgement of the problem --- e.g. an "I am sympathetic to > what you are trying to do, but ". I wasn't able to find that, and > that is part of what contributed to the feeling of not being heard. > > Thanks for your patient explanations, and hope that helps, > Jonathan I think it makes total sense to fix this. I had not spotted this myself since I tend to just roll forward and only use one version of git on one system, but fixing this makes sense.