Re: [git-for-windows] Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git for Windows 2.9.3

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Michael,

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
> > Maybe you want to re-read what you wrote to trigger his response, and
> > consider adjusting your attitude ("I want this now so I'll release it in
> > Git4Win") rather than the downstream name.
> 
> I am working *very* hard on improving the user experience of Git for
> Windows. And yes, sometimes I have to include something in Git for Windows
> versions that upstream Git does not include in the corresponding version
> number.
> 
> I am really at a loss why you see fit to attack me about that.

In case it is not crystal-clear, let me clarify one very important point.
It seems that some people mistake the work I do for something I do on a
whim. This is not so.

The patch series that triggered this entire unfortunate discussion
introduced the --smudge option, which I have subsequently renamed to
--filters and submitted as a patch series to the Git project.

So it is an altogether unfair misrepresentation to state that I introduce
features that deviate so much from upstream Git as to require a new name.

The feature in question is also highly unlikely to be used as much by
non-Windows users as by Windows users due to the unfortunate choice of the
default setting for core.autocrlf. Basically, Windows users have to use
those --filters all the time, and in many cases, git cat-file --batch
without --filters is simply useless. This is nothing, say, Linux users
would care about, of course, but Windows folks like me care a great deal
about it.

It is this need that literally guarantees that I will get more useful
feedback from Windows users about this feature (and in this context I mean
application developers) than from Linux or MacOSX users. And as a matter
of fact, I got exactly that: great feedback. This feedback resulted in the
addition of the --path option, and of the work I did on making --filters
compatible with the --batch mode.

So I take great exception at this criticism. I think these comments were
not really thought through, and I also would consider this discussion in
and of itself ("is Git for Windows really Git? Should it not be renamed,
despite Dscho's best efforts to get them in sync?") to be much more
harmful than any feature I introduced into Git for Windows before trying
to get it integrated into upstream Git.

Thank you very much for your attention,
Dscho