This conversation is way past dead at this point, but I wanted to respond now that things have had a time to cool off. I didn't really pursue a response last week because I felt like you [Christopher] had unilaterally imposed your will on the rest of us and were unwilling to discuss things further. I was pretty upset and decided to just step back from the conversation completely.
For the record, you don't have to keep things rebased, you can do a "git update-index --assume-unchanged" on the closeable files in your workspace and that would magically solve all your warnings. (I love that git is magical). The larger discussion that we need to have is what we do about the API problems, and the long-lived resources. There has been some discussion in IRC, on various JIRAs, and sprinkled across email about the proper solution, but I'm having a hard time mentally merging all of those conversations, so I'll propose that we refocus on it here. What are our invariants? What are the goals? What tools are available to solve the problem? Mike On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Could you just do #4 as a patch on your own local repo? It should be > > relatively easy to keep rebased given that it's just an interface. > [snip] > > No, I cannot easily keep 3 branches rebase'd, nor do I wish to > constantly rebase and reorder my other work that I wish to push, > waiting on this issue. I do not see an issue with this (essentially) > partial revert, of what was (in my view) incomplete work. The option > that seemed to be favored (by myself, included) was #3. Proceeding > with #4 in the meantime does not preclude #3 from proceeding, but it > does address the immediate issues at hand. We make improvements on > changes all the time. I don't see this as any different. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >
