On Wed, Nov 21 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Last reply, I
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I do not know if it makes sense to have 3 and 5 separate; I suspect
> a single patch that does "clarify the warning, and allow those who
> have no choice in which version of Git to choose squelch it" would
> suffice.
I actually do not mind two patches for these, but I
Junio C Hamano writes:
> As the deployed versions of Git will keep sending the wrong message,
> I do not mind applying 1/5 and 2/5, given especially that Ben seems
> to be OK with the plan. I however do not think 3 thru 5 is ready
> yet with this round---there were some discussions on phrasing
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> 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.
>
> What I have been saying is "we are
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> 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.
What I have been saying is "we are sending a wrong message to
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Now, a meta point. Throughout this discussion, I have been hoping for
>> some acknowledgement of the problem --- e.g. an "I am sympathetic to
>> what you are trying to do, but ". I wasn't able to find that, and
>> that is part of what
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Now, a meta point. Throughout this discussion, I have been hoping for
> some acknowledgement of the problem --- e.g. an "I am sympathetic to
> what you are trying to do, but ". I wasn't able to find that, and
> that is part of what contributed to the feeling of not
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Last reply, I promise. :)
This sentence might have the key to the
onathan Nieder wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> I acknowledge your puzzlement. I'm
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
Ben Peart writes:
>> This message should say something like "Index uses the mandatory %s
>> extension" to clarify and distinguish it from the below. We don't
>> understand the upper-case one either, but the important distinction is
>> that one is mandatory, and the other can be dropped. The two
On 11/20/2018 4:26 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Just commenting here on the end-state of this since it's easier than
each patch at a time:
First, do we still need to be doing %.4s instead of just %s? It would be
easier for translators / to
On Tue, Nov 20 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Just commenting here on the end-state of this since it's easier than
each patch at a time:
First, do we still need to be doing %.4s instead of just %s? It would be
easier for translators / to understand what's going on if it were just
%s. I.e. "this
It is not unusual for multiple distinct versions of Git to act on a
single repository. For example, some IDEs bundle a particular version
of Git, which can be a different version from the system copy of Git,
or on a Mac, /usr/bin/git quickly goes out of sync with the Homebrew
git in
14 matches
Mail list logo
