On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:55:07PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> John Szakmeister wrote:
> > I like the idea that we could kick git into a mode that applies the
> > behaviors we're talking about having in 2.0, but I'm concerned about
> > one aspect of it. Not having these behaviors until 2.0 hits means
> > we're free to renege on our decisions in favor of something better, or
> > to pull out a bad idea. But once we insert this knob, I don't know
> > that we have the same ability. Once people realize it's there and
> > start using it, it gets harder to back out. I guess we could maintain
> > the stance that "the features are not concrete yet," or something like
> > that, but I think people would still get upset if something changes
> > out from under them.
> We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least
> that option is not in question.
If we add core.addremove=true the same applies to it - we cannot remove
it later, the only we can do is to disable it by default in future
versions after testing (core.addremove=true or core.mode=next).
> > So, at the end of the day, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile to have.
> This is exactly what happened on 1.6; nobody really tested the 'git foo'
> behavior, so we just switched from one version to the next. If you are not
> familiar with the outcome; it wasn't good.
BTW, I'm still using pre-1.6 git-foo, I have /usr/libexec/git-core
in my PATH. So I would like to always have an option to disable some
new incompatible "improvements".
> So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow
> users (probably a minority) to start testing this.
and an option to keep the old behavior, like we did with push.default.
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