Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration

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

Krzysztof Mazur 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,

I'm not sure if a lot of urser would even notice the difference.

> because of possible different behavior without any warning.

I don't see what is the problem. We haven't had the need for push.default =
simplewarning, have we? If you want the warning, you don't change anything, if
you want to specify something, you already know what you are doing.

> 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?

Maybe, but would you actually use that 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.

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.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras