|
| ▲ | andrewflnr 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Great, then your choices are (a) try and probably fail to get your changes upstreamed and/or (b) maintain your own fork of git forever. This is very much a "if you don't like X about your country, just move to a different one" kind of "solution". The costs are extreme to the point that pretending it's viable is insulting. Really it's just a way to silence legitimate complaints. |
| |
|
| ▲ | LtdJorge 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Probably unacceptable as many would have built tooling around the specific default behaviors. |
| |
| ▲ | throw_await 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If tooling is relying on the output format of porcelain commands, it's wrong. The output of various subcommands have already changed more than once. | |
| ▲ | Jaxan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can have your own version. You don’t have to push all improvements upstream. | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not really feasible to maintain private forks of every piece of software you use (especially something like git that needs regular security patches) |
|
|
