From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859E3C10DCE for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB92206F1 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="V206q07I" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726695AbgCLTH2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:07:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56651 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725268AbgCLTH2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:07:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11239505F7; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:07:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=pQSTGWjALFXzM9ZN/iJ5UilPeO4=; b=V206q0 7IjJfdGkanifDM12srp4OS+zBNcsqMSTezpPMincT1M0fIRXdwp8WDP0X6FqpFYu 3twIA6nGKTDloSlEHt+PuVnegJG0OlTGNS5ePT32G8iIEqQCJKFw5wZ7wnkCt8eP 4NQQaI/Hekq6j4yWWXVk8s3gqAsdaXM7w6Qv8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mKa1cN3d5bgRhpcbAgG1FSaYY19atPjc y3nzTp5aIa5HBv5ECGLp0I7GnOdZQBA1dZHZGtKxpkWqXNjI1BKFeIzMzo6jrGUe CpXMFURkzO5dTV7xQlNc9VVqQKfislfNEN8NoGmzuLJHl0hweGeZ7JZiH1f4Xc6R 7QcHtnV6gRY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06762505F6; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:07:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 835C1505F5; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:07:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Emily Shaffer , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood , Denton Liu , Pavel Roskin , Alban Gruin , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 20/20] rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends References: <20200312151318.GM212281@google.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:07:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:33:02 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B5C2A9B2-6494-11EA-A3BB-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Elijah Newren writes: > I'm a little worried about ignoring the setting and just picking one; I am more than a little worried, too. I think erroring out is warranted in this case for exactly the reason you gave here. > if the setting has been marked and they set it to e.g. "appply" (one > too many p's), then does it really make sense to just show a warning > but continue using the backend they didn't want, especially since they > may miss the warning among the rest of the output? I'd rather go the > route of improving the message, perhaps: > _("Unknown rebase.backend config setting: %s")