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 Objection withdrawn; if nobody can come up with a sensible configuration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

Reply via email to