From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net>,
Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net>
Cc: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:55:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525e0e1b28c87_81a151de743f@nysa.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5V8wfbQTZ5do-UMRpSsxRN8bFaHVnG7kRNfP0t+oYbfNg@mail.gmail.com>
John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible
> >> > > > change without any warning.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean, why would the user set
> >> > > core.mode=next, if the user doesn't want to experencie incompatible changes? A
> >> > > user that sets this mode is expecting incompatible changes, and will be willing
> >> > > to test them, and report back if there's any problem with them.
> >> >
> >> > With your patch, because it's the only way to have 'git add' v2.0.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suggested to have *both* a
> >> fined-tunned way to have this behavior, say core.addremove = true, and a way to
> >> enable *all* v2.0 behaviors (core.mode = next).
> >
> > I'm just not sure if a lot of users would use core.mode=next, because
> > of possible different behavior without any warning. Maybe we should also
> > add core.mode=next-warn that changes defaults like next but keeps warnings
> > enabled until the user accepts that change by setting appropriate
> > config option? That's safer than next (at least for interactive use) and
> > maybe more users would use that, but I don't think that's worth adding.
>
> I like the idea that we could kick git into a mode that applies the
> behaviors we're talking about having in 2.0, but I'm concerned about
> one aspect of it. Not having these behaviors until 2.0 hits means
> we're free to renege on our decisions in favor of something better, or
> to pull out a bad idea. But once we insert this knob, I don't know
> that we have the same ability. Once people realize it's there and
> start using it, it gets harder to back out. I guess we could maintain
> the stance that "the features are not concrete yet," or something like
> that, but I think people would still get upset if something changes
> out from under them.
We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least
that option is not in question.
Presumably you are worried about the other options that can't be enabled in any
way.
But think about this; you are worried that if we add an *option* to enable this
new behaviors, then we would be kind of forced to keep these behaviors. That
seems to imply that you are proposing the current default; we wait until 2.0
and not make it an *option*, but make it *default*.
I think waiting until 2.0 to make it a default without evern having an option,
and thus nobody actuallly testing this, is way worst than what I'm proposing;
to add an option to start testing.
> So, at the end of the day, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile to have.
This is exactly what happened on 1.6; nobody really tested the 'git foo'
behavior, so we just switched from one version to the next. If you are not
familiar with the outcome; it wasn't good.
So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow
users (probably a minority) to start testing this.
--
Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-16 4:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-12 7:04 [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration Felipe Contreras
2013-10-14 20:59 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-14 21:35 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-15 12:35 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-15 12:32 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-15 13:33 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-15 13:29 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-15 14:51 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-15 16:59 ` John Szakmeister
2013-10-16 3:55 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2013-10-16 7:09 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-16 19:31 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-16 10:54 ` John Szakmeister
2013-10-16 15:11 ` John Szakmeister
2013-10-16 19:57 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-16 19:32 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-16 22:02 ` Philip Oakley
2013-10-16 23:06 ` Jonathan Nieder
2013-10-17 19:48 ` Philip Oakley
2013-10-17 21:08 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-15 18:51 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-15 22:01 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-16 4:03 ` Felipe Contreras
2013-10-16 6:34 ` Krzysztof Mazur
2013-10-16 19:28 ` Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=525e0e1b28c87_81a151de743f@nysa.notmuch \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john@szakmeister.net \
--cc=krzysiek@podlesie.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).