Hi,
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I am still puzzled by the insistence of 3/5 and this step that wants
> to kill the coalmine canary. But I am even more puzzled by the
> first two steps that want to disable the two optional extensions.
>
> What's so different this time with the new optional extensions?
>
> The other early optional extensions like cache-tree or resolve-undo
> were added unconditionally and by definition appeared much earlier
> in git-core than any other Git reimplementations. Everbody who
> recorded the fact that s/he resolved merge conflicts got REUC, and
> we would have given warning when an older Git did not understand
> these extensions [*1*]. We knudged users to more modern Git by
> preparing the old Gits to warn when there are unknown extensions,
> either by upgrading their Git themselves, or by bugging their
> toolsmiths. Nobody complained to propose to rip the messages like
> this round. This series has a strong smell of pushing back by the
> toolsmiths who refuse to promptly upgrade to help their users, and
> that is why I do not feel entirely happy with this series.
I acknowledge your puzzlement. I'm not sure what to do about it.
There are a few significant differences from the REUC case:
1. This happens whenever the index is refreshed. REUC, as you
mentioned, only affected resolutions of conflicted merges. So
users ran into it less often.
2. I never ran into the REUC case. If I had, I would have sent the
same patch then.
3. Time has passed and people's standards may have gone up.
I wish I had been around when the message was added in the first
place, so that I could have provided the same feedback about the
message then. But I do not think that that should be held against me.
I'm describing a real user problem.
Are the commit messages unclear? Is there some missing use case that
this version of the patch misses?
I don't *think* you intend to say "sure, you got user reports, but
(those users are wrong | those users are not real | you are not
interpreting those users correctly)", but that is what I am hearing.
On the other hand, I don't want to discourage useful review feedback,
and I think adding the advise() call was a real improvement. I'm just
getting confused about why I am still not being heard.
Jonathan
