5 ms·
I bet it's not as easy as "just delete the code". They will probably have to do quite a bit of refactoring to remove this, followed by a probably even larger am
by DangerousPie 13y ago
I bet it's not as easy as "just delete the code". They will probably have to do quite a bit of refactoring to remove this, followed by a probably even larger amount of testing.
Long-term this is probably the right solution, but why go through all this trouble right now if there is a simple workaround? It seems like the only problem right now is a few people's pride.
- moron4hire 13y agoOf course it's not that easy. They don't have a compiler with a static checker to show them all the places the field was used :P
- Allan_Smithee 13y agoHow much you wanna bet? (https://github.com/github/linguist/issues/985 https://github.com/github/linguist/issues/985)
- DangerousPie 13y agoIf I'm reading this right all this does is define the first extension as the primary extension, which still has to be unique. So they would still have to use a different extension as the first one in the list, it just wouldn't be called "primary" anymore. How would this help?
- aeontech 13y agoThere's no more requirement for it to be unique as far as I can see.
- nox_ 13y agoThere is no unicity check anymore; I just kept the first one special because some private code at GitHub seems to rely on the primary_extension property for the Gist editor. As I can't hack this (it is private), I can't remove it entirely.