On 05/19/2014 11:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
After looking at the reverse-depends list of packages, my faith is
strengthened in that the Git ecosystem is truly maturing and useful
third-party plug-ins will be picked
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 05/19/2014 11:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Where is git-imerge packaged?
I didn't see it on the archive the said Ubuntu box slurps from, but
I did not check
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
2. add warning that is given every time the scripts are run and
give the same instruction as in README.
3. (optional) cripple the script to make them always fail after
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
After looking at the reverse-depends list of packages, my faith is
strengthened in that the Git ecosystem is truly maturing and useful
third-party plug-ins will be picked up by distro
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's try this in a different way, as I sense there is a
misunderstanding somewhere about your wish.
...
No, I already said I do not want the code removed from v2.0, that's why
I sent patches that simply added a warning, and I specifically
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Let's try this in a different way, as I sense there is a
misunderstanding somewhere about your wish.
...
No, I already said I do not want the code removed from v2.0, that's why
I sent patches that simply added a
Johan Herland wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
wrote:
On 05/19/2014 11:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Where is git-imerge packaged?
I didn't see it on the archive the said Ubuntu box slurps
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
...
So to make it clear, I now request that you do:
1) Remove all the code.
...
I'll do that, but just one thing to make sure---do you want the
helper to exit
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- The always warn does not force update at the point of use, but
it still does not help them to notice well before they try to use
it for the first time after update;
I don't understand this sentence. They
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
2. add warning that is given every time the scripts are run and
give the same instruction as in README.
3. (optional) cripple the script to make them always fail after
showing the same warning as
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
After looking at the reverse-depends list of packages, my faith is
strengthened in that the Git ecosystem is truly maturing and useful
third-party plug-ins will be picked up by distro packagers.
Where is git-imerge
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- The always warn does not force update at the point of use, but
it still does not help them to notice well before they try to use
it for the first time after update;
I don't
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
We could add these two to the warning, then, to discourage people
who see please visit this URL and say Yuck, I have no time for
that without actually visiting.
We could. Personally I don't see the point of making the warning any
more
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
We could. Personally I don't see the point of making the warning any
more annoying
If we were giving the users a choice of no thanks, I'll keep using
the obsolete one, then trying to be a low key
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
We could. Personally I don't see the point of making the warning any
more annoying
If we were giving the users a choice of no thanks, I'll keep using
the obsolete
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
We could. Personally I don't see the point of making the warning any
more annoying
If we were giving the users
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
% git fetch
WARNING: git-remote-hg is now maintained independently.
WARNING: For more information visit https://github.com/felipec/git-remote-hg
searching for changes
no changes found
I don't think the situation is as simple as you
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
% git fetch
WARNING: git-remote-hg is now maintained independently.
WARNING: For more information visit
https://github.com/felipec/git-remote-hg
searching for changes
no changes found
I don't think the
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
But that being said, this is Felipe's code. While we have a legal right
to distribute it in v2.0, if he would really prefer it out for v2.0, I
would respect that.
I am fine with that.
Are you? Because in two of the three options you
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
My concerns were with people not noticing the README. Removing the code
entirely is the way I thought of to address that. Junio suggested
another way, which I would also be fine with. And it seems like a
friendlier way than removal to handle it for v2.0, if we
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
But that being said, this is Felipe's code. While we have a legal right
to distribute it in v2.0, if he would really prefer it out for v2.0, I
would respect that.
I am fine with that.
Are you? Because in
Junio C Hamano wrote:
My suggestion to rename the directory without smudging the scripts
was meant to be a step that can come before that step, and I think
its necessity is debatable. It depends on how gradual a transition
you want to give, and being always the more cautious type,
I think
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:25:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I agree with the line of reasoning you laid out in your email,
especially:
What a shock.
Please stop with these unproductive and rude comments.
I hadn't thought of the rename idea, and it would address the concerns I
Jeff King wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:25:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I agree with the line of reasoning you laid out in your email,
especially:
What a shock.
Please stop with these unproductive and rude comments.
I am sorry, but the fact of the matter is that you
Felipe Contreras wrote:
James Denholm wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:39:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
(...) I would venture to say you have never made a package in your
life.
And you have, Felipe? Let us see the years of experience you surely have
in the field.
As a
James Denholm wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
James Denholm wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 05:39:42PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
(...) I would venture to say you have never made a package in your
life.
And you have, Felipe? Let us see the years of experience you surely have
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
---
* I am inclined to queue this for 2.0, and we would also need an
update to the release notes as
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
I do not think this README nor a mention in the release notes will get
their attention either, and many people (and
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
But that being said, this is Felipe's code. While we have a legal right
to distribute it in v2.0, if he would really prefer it out for v2.0, I
would respect that.
My understanding is that Felipe would prefer to keep it _in_ the
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:55:54AM +0200, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
But that being said, this is Felipe's code. While we have a legal right
to distribute it in v2.0, if he would really prefer it out for v2.0, I
would respect
Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
But that being said, this is Felipe's code. While we have a legal right
to distribute it in v2.0, if he would really prefer it out for v2.0, I
would respect that.
My understanding is that Felipe
Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
I do not think this README nor a mention in the release notes will get
their attention
(Sorry if you receive a dup; pobox.com seems to be constipated right now).
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
I do
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
I do not think this README nor a mention in the release notes will get
their
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:56:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
I do not think this README nor a mention in the
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 09:52:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Or am I reacting to a typo and you meant to say I would prefer not
to instrument? Your shipping the warnings to end users who did
not package the software will not help was unclear if you meant the
README that has warning or
Jeff King wrote:
I agree with the line of reasoning you laid out in your email,
especially:
What a shock.
I would say that the options I see are these three, and I would rank
the warn every time as less helpful to end-users:
- rename contrib/remote-helpers to
Two announcements for their version 0.2 on the list archive are not
quite enough to advertise them to their users.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
---
* I am inclined to queue this for 2.0, and we would also need an
update to the release notes as well.
I am undecided
38 matches
Mail list logo
