On 23.02.2016 at 06:02 Jeff King wrote:
Let's wait and see how many "please don't"s we hear, perhaps, before
deciding to go 3.?
I'm guessing we won't see much either way. Even Stefan, the original
reporter, does not seem to actively be using it, but rather relaying a
report.
I _am_ actively using it. Maybe I was unclear on that topic. I'm in
favour of keeping it, because this means I don't have to rewrite Chris'
Code in order to be able to use the Python library that uses merge-tree
(Acidfs). But as a sensible human being I want what's best in the long
run. I leave that up to you as I have no way of assessing that.
So that's a "please don't" leave the code as-is but provide a
(transitional) solution that fixes the reported bug and has the best
chances of not causing any more headaches :)
We'd probably get more response by doing 2 for now, then adding a
deprecation warning to the manpage (and possibly the program itself) for
the next release.
A deprecation warning would be very welcome.
Thanks,
Stefan
--
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
