Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [RFD] On deprecating "git-foo" for builtins

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:31:26 -0700 (PDT)

Perry Wagle <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Aug 28, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> 
>>> I now have to TEST to find those crazy backwards-incompatibility
>>> bugs before I can upgrade us to 1.6.0.  To test, I have to try to
>>> imagine what I and others were assuming about git.  And this
>>> episode means that I can't make any assumptions about the sanity
>>> of any changes since March, which is the version I'm thinking of
>>> upgrading.
>>>
>>> But note that THIS upward compatibility bug has been declared to
>>> not be a bug.  Will any others receive the same stamp?
>>>
>>> So please put on your engineer hat, and stop talking about "specious
>>> claims" and hurting feelings.

>>  - there has been _one_ such problem, and the person responsible for
>>    vetting such changes has solicited suggestions for doing better in
>>    the future. I don't think that is indicative of a pattern of such
>>    changes.
> 
> Ok.  My suggestion is that it shouldn't have been done in the first
> place, and we should now revert.  But others are saying over and over
> "its done!  live with it!".  I came in late.  What did I miss in the
> last 6 months.  Sounds like people have lots of practice with these
> water-over-the-dam's, surely this isn't the first time?

Errr... what last 6 months? Using "git <cmd>" over "git-<cmd>"
(also in scripts) was recommended for a long, long time' much more
than those 6 months.

Besides, the question stated in this thread was not whether to move
"git-*" commands outside $(bindir) (usually '/usr/bin'), but whether
to not create or not links (or symlinks, or hardcopy) in gitexecdir.
 
>>  - But let's say you have lost some faith in the git development
>>    process due to _this_ bug. But let's look at the history of this
>>    bug. It has been discussed several times for the past 2 years, along
>>    with a mention in the release notes several versions ago. It was not
>>    a surprise to anybody who has been developing git.
> 
> In March 2008, the sample git-hooks and git-web used git<DASH>
> commands.  That was the last I looked at git until Tuesday of this
> week.

As I said earlier in this thread, if by git-web you mean gitweb this
is simply not true.  _At least_ since commit 25691fb (gitweb: Use
--git-dir parameter instead of setting $ENV{'GIT_DIR'}) gitweb used
dashless form.

> But I think I'll still remain wary because 1.6 introduced a nearly
> complete renaming of the API for what, in this thread anyway,
> completely silly reasons.  If there are good reasons, I haven't seen
> them.

IIRC the reasons are git wrapper options linke --paginate or
--git-dir, equal treatment of git aliases, and cluttering of bindir
(which might be ~/bin).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git