On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 5:27 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > That's still inviting unnecessary emails, isn't it? It would probably > > > be better add the qualification that people should send the email only > > > if they were unable to find any workable replacement. Perhaps: > > > > > > - send an email to <git@...> to let us know > > > that you still use this command and were unable > > > to determine a suitable replacement > > > > In practice, people will respond to such an instruction by always > > sending an e-mail. Asking others who sound as if they are promising > > to give answers when asked is cheaper than investigating themselves > > Thanks for pointing out that my final editing made my suggested > wording too succinct. What I really had in mind -- in conjunction with > Kristoffer's patch [2/4] which provides hint(s) for replacing the > command being retired -- was to reference the provided hints. So, > something like this: > > - send an email to <...> to let us know > that you still use this command and were unable > to determine a suitable replacement using the hints > provided here I realize that the changes made by this series are not in any released version yet, but from reading the emails still arriving which argue for retaining the command for reasons of muscle memory or because of its (strong) mnemonic value, I suspect that the hint(s) this series adds may not be complete enough. In particular, the advice this series adds (use `git log --raw --no-merges`) seems to be primarily aimed at scripted use of the command. But the muscle memory and mnemonic arguments suggest that advice should be given for interactive use, as well, such as proposing that the user can create an alias.
