From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Mazur Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:09:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20131016070900.GC24964@shrek.podlesie.net> References: <1381561485-20252-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <20131014205908.GA17089@shrek.podlesie.net> <525c63b6711fa_197a905e845b@nysa.notmuch> <20131015123505.GA3097@shrek.podlesie.net> <525d35e766ad4_55661275e7426@nysa.notmuch> <20131015133327.GA22723@shrek.podlesie.net> <525d4354a5436_5844e73e843d@nysa.notmuch> <20131015145139.GA3977@shrek.podlesie.net> <525e0e1b28c87_81a151de743f@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: John Szakmeister , git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 16 09:09:12 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VWLEF-0004Pp-8Y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:09:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753117Ab3JPHJG (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:09:06 -0400 Received: from shrek-wifi.podlesie.net ([93.179.225.50]:57078 "EHLO shrek.podlesie.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752500Ab3JPHJF (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:09:05 -0400 Received: by shrek.podlesie.net (Postfix, from userid 603) id A2C6078; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:09:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <525e0e1b28c87_81a151de743f@nysa.notmuch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:55:07PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > John Szakmeister wrote: > > > > 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. If we add core.addremove=true the same applies to it - we cannot remove it later, the only we can do is to disable it by default in future versions after testing (core.addremove=true or core.mode=next). > > 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. BTW, I'm still using pre-1.6 git-foo, I have /usr/libexec/git-core in my PATH. So I would like to always have an option to disable some new incompatible "improvements". > > So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow > users (probably a minority) to start testing this. > and an option to keep the old behavior, like we did with push.default. Krzysiek