Hi Jake,

Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Sergey,
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Sergey Organov wrote:
>>> > Have a look at https://github.com/git/git/pull/447, especially the
>>> > latest commit in there which is an early version of the deprecation I
>>> > intend to bring about.
>>> You shouldn't want a deprecation at all should you have re-used
>>> --preserve-merges in the first place, and I still don't see why you
>>> haven't.
>> Keep repeating it, and it won't become truer.
>> If you break formats, you break scripts. Git has *so* many users, there
>> are very likely some who script *every* part of it.
>> We simply cannot do that.
>> What we can is deprecate designs which we learned on the way were not only
>> incomplete from the get-go, but bad overall and hard (or impossible) to
>> fix. Like --preserve-merges.
>> Or for that matter like the design you proposed, to use --first-parent for
>> --recreate-merges. Or to use --first-parent for some --recreate-merges,
>> surprising users in very bad ways when it is not used (or when it is
>> used). I get the impression that you still think it would be a good idea,
>> even if it should be obvious that it is not.
> If we consider the addition of new todo list elements as "user
> breaking", then yes this change would be user-script breaking.

It _is_ user script breaking, provided such script exists. Has anybody
actually seen one? Not that it's wrong to be extra-cautious about it,
just curios. Note that to be actually affected, such a script must
invoke "git rebase -p" _command_ and then tweak its todo output to
produce outcome.

> Since we did not originally spell out that todo-list items are subject
> to enhancement by addition of operations in the future, scripts are
> likely not designed to allow addition of new elements.

Out of curiosity, are you going to spell it now, for the new todo

> Thus, adding recreate-merges, and deprecating preserve-merges, seems
> to me to be the correct action to take here.

Yes, sure, provided there is actual breakage, or at least informed
suspicion there is one.

> One could argue that users should have expected new todo list elements
> to be added in the future and thus design their scripts to cope with
> such a thing. If you can convincingly argue this, then I don't
> necessarily see it as a complete user breaking change to fix
> preserve-merges in order to allow it to handle re-ordering properly..

I'd not argue this way myself. If there are out-of-git-tree non-human
users that accept and tweak todo _generated_ by current "git rebase -p"
_command_, I also vote for a new option.

> I think I lean towards agreeing with Johannes, and that adding
> recreate-merges and removing preserve-merges is the better solution.

On these grounds it is, no objections.

-- Sergey

Reply via email to