On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Al Viro <viro@hera.kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:57:56AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>>> The masses should forget about the git-foo form. If you push people
>>> into using git-foo then you are not following git guidelines; you
>>> would be pushing your own agenda.
>>
>> Egads...  For sarcasm it's far too heavy-handed and if that's for real...
>> What's next, verbal diarrhea about Diluting the Message(tm)?
>
> Sorry, I guess I should have made it clearer.
>
> I haven't made my mind about git-foo vs "git foo", but a decision has
> been made to deprecate git-foo, and allow it as an option for the
> people that really want to use it, right?
>
> So there must have been a reason to deprecate git-foo, if people keep
> using git-foo, and distributions keep allowing it, what's the point of
> deprecation? It's ok if they keep that usage to themselves, like
> 'alias ll = ls -l', but it's not something to assume everybody uses.
>
> So either we take back the decision and keep discussing if it's a good
> idea to deprecate git-foo, or we go forward and discourage git-foo
> completely.
>
> Anything in the middle would just confuse people more, and wouldn't
> achieve the purpose of deprecation.
>
> If some script is relying on git-foo, and it has been deprecated, it
> should be fixed.

Actually, now I think I understand the point of David Woodhouse better.

If the git-foo was supposed to be deprecated in 1.6.0, it should still
work by default, but something to strongly discourage it like a
warning should have been added.

When it becomes truly obsolete, then people can rely on git exec-dir,
which will be disabled by default.

So is it deprecated or obsolete?

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html