Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't *think* you intend to say "sure, you got user reports, but >> (those users are wrong | those users are not real | you are not >> interpreting those users correctly)", but that is what I am hearing. > > What I have been saying is "we are sending a wrong message to those > users by not clearly saying 'optional' (i.e. it is OK for your Git > not to understand this optional bits of information---you do not > have to get alarmed immediately) and also not hinting where that > optional thing comes from (i.e. if users realized they come from the > future, the coalmine canary message will serve its purpose of > reminding them that a newer Git is not just available but has been > used already in their repository and help them to rectify the > situation sooner)". > > As the deployed versions of Git will keep sending the wrong message, > I do not mind applying 1/5 and 2/5, given especially that Ben seems > to be OK with the plan. I however do not think 3 thru 5 is ready > yet with this round---there were some discussions on phrasing in > this thread. Thanks much --- that helps a lot. Would you mind taking patch 4/5 as well? (It's a tweak to the configuration introduced in patches 1 and 2 that addresses a concern Ben Peart had.) As for patches 3 and 5, I agree. In particular, patch 5 needs an s/performance//, and it seems that the commit messages need some work as well. Sorry for getting the conversation in the wrong direction, and I'm glad to hear we have a good way forward. Sincerely, Jonathan
