Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

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).

If we have both, and the user sets core.mode = next, that means the user wants
*all* the incompatible changes.

> But if another git v2.0 incompatible change will be added it will not
> be warned, because with core.mode=next he decided to enable also
> future changes and that's why I would never set that.

That's fine, you wouldn't set that, but I would. That's why it's a
configuration.

> > > I think it's better to keep the old behavior by default and warn the user if
> > > with new behavior the result might be different. So the user:
> > > 
> > > 	a) knows about the change
> > > 
> > > 	b) may set appropriate option to enable the new default or keep
> > > 	   the old behavior and disable the warning
> > > 
> > > 	c) may report that he does not like that change
> > 
> > But that's what we are doing already. Look at the test I wrote, it's testing
> > the warnings for the current version of Git.
> 
> With pull.default we did that, but with git add v2.0 now we only warn
> the user. With your patch he can enable new git add (and disable warning),
> but he also enables future incompatible changes and disables
> warnings for such changes.

Yeah, but I suggested to have *both* a fine-tunned option and a general one,
didn't I?

> He also cannot keep the old behaviour and disable the warning.

He cannot do that regardless if my patch is merged or not.

> > > I don't see the change in "git add" as an improvement, because
> > > removing files with "git add" IMHO is more confusing than ignoring
> > > such files. Maybe introducing new command - "git update" for instance -
> > > which is equivalent to new "git add" and teaching new users to use it
> > > instead of "git add" is better.
> > 
> > I agree. At first I simply ignored the changes because I didn't have the
> > patience to figure out what exactly did they mean. Now I was forced to
> > understand them to write this patch, and I'm also forcing myself to use this
> > behavior.
> > 
> > 'git add' removing files is counter-intutive, 'git stage' (currently an alias
> > to 'git add') might make more sense.
> 
> Yeah, 'git stage' as an alias to 'git add -A' is much more intuitive.

Agreed.

-- 
Felipe Contreras