list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Philip Oakley <>
Cc: Elijah Newren <>,
	Denton Liu <>,
	Viresh Kumar <>,
	Git Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [Bug report] git diff stat shows unrelated diff
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:21:55 -0800
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Philip Oakley's message of "Sun, 17 Feb 2019 23:34:53 +0000")

Philip Oakley <> writes:

> It was my understanding that the end point would be total removal of
> any options and the typing of the double dot would be an error. Given
> that hard end point I was looking to ensure that users of double dots
> have a manageable route to unlearning old bad habits. Thus the first
> phase would be opt-in,

Sorry, but I do not see any logical connection in this "Thus".  If
we are still undecided if deprecating double-dot is a good idea and
trying to gauge the impact, then perhaps an early "opt-in" to leave
the door open for aborting the transition plan might make sense (as
an escape hatch for _us_ the project developers to make excuse to
the end users).  But I am getting an impression that it is not the
plan you have in mind.

> To train the fingers, and to check local scripts and aliases, the user
> needs feedback, preferably at a time of their convenience (as opposed
> to being a time of inconvenience), so assuming they have been paying
> moderate attention to the release notes, providing the opt-in phase
> gives them that.

And to those who haven't been paying attention, what happens when
your "first phase" period expires?

I would be a lot more sympathetic if your argument were "some people
will not be ready to start training, and they will be helped if we
had an opt-out knob early in the long deprecation period".  Even
those who have not been paying attention at all _will_ be hit by
deprecation warning, and that is when they can decide if they want
to start training or they are not ready and want to postpone, so in
that sense, "initial opt-out" may make sense, but I do not see how
"initial opt-in" can be a viable thing.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-18  0:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-14  8:22 Viresh Kumar
2019-02-14 18:42 ` Johannes Sixt
2019-02-14 21:23 ` Elijah Newren
2019-02-14 22:10   ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-15 18:52     ` Denton Liu
2019-02-15 19:25       ` Elijah Newren
2019-02-15 20:12         ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-15 22:48           ` Philip Oakley
2019-02-15 23:32             ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-16 12:47               ` Philip Oakley
2019-02-17  3:34                 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-17 23:34                   ` Philip Oakley
2019-02-18  0:21                     ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2019-02-15 19:28       ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-15  6:40   ` Viresh Kumar
2019-02-15 16:09     ` Elijah Newren
2019-02-18  4:34       ` Viresh Kumar

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:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 git git/ \
	public-inbox-index git

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
 note: .onion URLs require Tor:

code repositories for the project(s) associated with this inbox:

AGPL code for this site: git clone