On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:51:41PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I don't see what is the problem. We haven't had the need for push.default =
> simplewarning, have we? If you want the warning, you don't change anything, if

simplewarning makes no sense, because push.default=simple sets exact
behavior, not some "next" behavior that may change in future.

For instance, I was very unhappy once, when git pull failed and said
that I should do git pull --merge.

> you want to specify something, you already know what you are doing.
> > Maybe we should also add core.mode=next-warn that changes defaults like next
> > but keeps warnings enabled until the user accepts that change by setting
> > appropriate config option?
> Maybe, but would you actually use that option?


> > That's safer than next (at least for interactive use) and maybe more users
> > would use that, but I don't think that's worth adding.
> Maybe, but I don't think many users would use either mode, and that's good.
> > For me, old behavior by default and warnings with information how to
> > enable new incompatible features, is sufficient. So I don't need
> > core.mode option, but as long it will be useful for other users I have
> > nothing against it.
> OK, but that seems to mean you don't need core.mode = next-warn either. I'm 
> not
> against adding such a mode, but I would like to hear about _somebody_ that
> would like to actually use it. I don't like to program for ghosts.

As I said earlier, I don't think that next-warn it's worth adding, but
such option might increase the number of people interested in the

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