Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:

>> I don't mind seeing support for "-q" dropped, but I really don't think
>> it's worth delaying git 2.0 for that.  Would s/in Git 2.0/in some
>> future release/ be ok?
> I do not think keeping the support for "-q" in is any huge burden.
> We do not have to remove it, forever, for that matter.

I agree with the above, which is why I don't want a promise to remove
the "-q" option to cause Git 2.0 to be delayed.  It would be better to
schedule it for Git 3.0, or for another unspecified future git

I thought the 2.0 boundary was a time for changes that everyone
already knew we should make, where we had been waiting for a good
moment to change behavior while giving people adequate warning to
avoid disrupting them too much.  We have a good collection of those
for 2.0, and the next batch can wait until 3.0.

Sorry for the lack of clarity,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to