On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 09:10:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> writes: > > > OK, I take it back. I *can* imagine configurations that this change > > would break, since it does change intentional and documented behavior, > > but I don't have any such configuration. The only such configuration I > > can imagine involves directly counting on the non-rewriting of pushUrl, > > by using pushInsteadOf to rewrite urls and then sometimes using pushUrl > > to override that and point back at the un-rewritten URL. And while > > supported, that does seem *odd*. > > > > Objection withdrawn; if nobody can come up with a sensible configuration > > that relies on the documented behavior, I don't particularly care if it > > changes. > > I actually do. > > Given the popularity of the system, "people involved in this thread > cannot imagine a case that existing people may get hurt" is very > different from "this is not a regression". After merging this > change when people start complaining, you and Rob can hide and > ignore them, but we collectively as the Git project have to have a > way to help them when it happens.
I entirely agree that it represents a regression from documented behavior; I just mean that it no longer matches a specific use case I had in mind with the original change. I agree that we should hesitate to change that documented behavior. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html