Matthieu Moy <> writes:

> Felipe Contreras <> writes:
>> Why is not material for v2.0? Because you say so? Are you going to wait 
>> another
>> ten years to introduce this to v3.0?
> There's no need to wait for a 3.0 to introduce this. If these would
> be low-priority compared to user-defined aliases, there's no backward
> compatibility issue, it can very well be a 2.1, or whatever number comes
> after 2.0.

I do not think the discussion has analysed the issue deeply enough
for us to tell what the final proposal would look like, in order to
judge what kind of issues, whether related to backward compatibility
or not, are involved.  My hunch is that this may not have to wait
for a big version bump, but I am not sure about that at this point.

Also I do not think 3.0 has to wait for ten years, either.

We started discussing incompatible updates for 2.0 in earnest during
the v1.8.2 timeframe, which was tagged mid-March 2013 with a release
notes with a "B/c notes for 2.0" section, but IIRC the discussion of
many of the "let's make things consistent (even if that means we
have to break existing users), and devise ways to make the transtion
for them as smooth as possible" changes that finally is going to
happen in v2.0 have been in the works since the v1.7.x era (tagged
late January 2012).  While I do not want to rush things late in a
cycle (notice how many topics are still cooking in 'next' and will
continue to be in preparation for 2.1 right now), I do not think it
is warranted to have a panic "3.0 will be ten years out, and we will
miss the boat if we do not cram this in some shape into 2.0"---that
kind of haste simply is not necessary.

Even if we end up having to wait for 3.0, it will happen within two
years max, if not earlier.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to