Jeff King wrote:
> But I think all of this discussion just reinforces my point. We do not
> have to agree on what the user intended. But the fact that we do not
> agree means that out of a sample size of 2 users, we have 2 different
> things the user expects to happen. If we choose a behavior and say "this
> makes sense", then the other half of the users are going to be confused
> or annoyed.

Yes, disagreement is healthy.  My point is that we should have "sane"
defaults, and fine-grained configurability so that uses who disagree
can maintain their own configs.  In this case, respecting a
branch.*.remote for each branch is more fine-grained, while not doing
so is coarse and makes me unhappy.  Then again, we don't have to go
overboard and design another ten configuration variables, but we can
atleast improve on what we already have without breaking consistency
(but we have to minimally break backward compatibility).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to