Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration

[Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net>]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:03:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > not some "next" behavior that may change in future.
> 
> But I'm suggesting to add a core.addremove option as well, like you suggested,
> am I not?

Yes, I think we both agreed on adding core.addremove. I'm just not
convinced if we should also add core.mode.

> 
> So you would be happy if we had core.addremove = true *and* core.mode = next,
> right? You would use one, different people with different needs would use the
> other.

Yes, if there are people that will use core.mode it will be worth
adding. I'm just not one of them.

> 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Maybe, but I don't think many users would use either mode, and that's good.
> > > 
> > > > For me, old behavior by default and warnings with information how to
> > > > enable new incompatible features, is sufficient. So I don't need
> > > > core.mode option, but as long it will be useful for other users I have
> > > > nothing against it.
> > > 
> > > OK, but that seems to mean you don't need core.mode = next-warn either. I'm not
> > > against adding such a mode, but I would like to hear about _somebody_ that
> > > would like to actually use it. I don't like to program for ghosts.
> > >
> > 
> > As I said earlier, I don't think that next-warn it's worth adding, but
> > such option might increase the number of people interested in the
> > core.mode.
> 
> Well that's a hypothesis, and I would be interested in finding out if that's
> true, but until I see somebody that says "I want core.mode = next-war", I'm
> going to assume they are hypothetical.
> 

Yes, that's just a hypothesis.

Krzysiek