[Bash-completion-devel] Dropping _subversion (was: Re: [Bash-completion-commits] [SCM] bash-completion branch, master, updated. 81e48606d011a96393ae2ae713bc6cda0fb18249)

[Ville Skyttä]

On Friday 05 June 2009, David Paleino wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:47:18 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Friday 05 June 2009, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > > David Paleino a écrit :
> > > > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> > > > commit 81e48606d011a96393ae2ae713bc6cda0fb18249
> > > > Author: David Paleino <d.paleino at gmail.com>
> > > > Date:   Fri Jun 5 08:30:26 2009 +0200
> > > >
> > > >     Don't install _subversion anymore
> > >
> > > Which means it isn't distributed either... I'd prefer to keep it
> > > available in the archive.
> >
> > What's the reason for not installing it anyway?  If there is a good one,
> > I think it should at least be mentioned in the change log.
>
> Didn't we agree that upstream one was better than our? Wasn't that also the
> reason to install it as "_subversion", i.e. to avoid filename collision
> with upstream's?

I don't recall any of that, perhaps I wasn't yet following upstream bash-
completion when that was discussed [0].  And I'm certain a lot of bash-
completion users don't do that either, therefore this information would be 
very good to have in CHANGES to avoid confusion (that's what I did when I 
removed hg).

> Anyway, we could also revert that commit, no hard feelings about it.

Like Guillaume, I'd prefer if it was kept around in the dist tarball for a 
while even if not installed by default.  Add it to EXTRA_DIST in Makefile.am?

[0] Actually I've several times had the intention to ask why it was named 
_subversion with the underscore but never did; anyway now I know ;)