From: "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>
To: "John Szakmeister" <john@szakmeister.net>,
"Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: "Krzysztof Mazur" <krzysiek@podlesie.net>, <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:02:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8629441933A94862982C5CDD6BF47690@PhilipOakley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 525ee9d93c3af_3983c19e7caa@nysa.notmuch
From: "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> John Szakmeister wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
> Similarly, if a user does core.mode = next, the user is expecting to
> enable all
> future behaviors, because that's what core.mode = next does, if he
> doesn't want
> to do that, then why would he use that option?
>
Would this be a good time to suggest a specific wording should be
proposed (or a reminder of what was proposed repeated) for the
documentation of this option. It will be the documentation that users
will refer to when they need to know, rather than the list discussions.
The too and fro discussion suggested that it would be important to
present the chosen viewpoint well, so there would be no
misunderstanding, such that 'users' of the mode realise that they are
acting as testers, and there are no promises for the posterity of any
trial behaviour, and they (the tester) have a 'caveat emptor'
responsibility. And that they need to keep up with developments (list &
release notes) so that at any update they know what will disappear and
appear without warning.
Philip
> --
> Felipe Contreras
> --
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-16 22:03 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
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 [this message]
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=8629441933A94862982C5CDD6BF47690@PhilipOakley \
--to=philipoakley@iee.org \
--cc=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).