Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Philip Oakley wrote:
>
> > Would this be a good time to suggest a specific wording should be
> > proposed (or a reminder of what was proposed repeated) for the
> > documentation of this option. It will be the documentation that
> > users will refer to when they need to kno
From: "Jonathan Nieder"
Philip Oakley wrote:
Would this be a good time to suggest a specific wording should be
proposed (or a reminder of what was proposed repeated) for the
documentation of this option. It will be the documentation that
users will refer to when they need to know, rather than
Philip Oakley wrote:
> Would this be a good time to suggest a specific wording should be
> proposed (or a reminder of what was proposed repeated) for the
> documentation of this option. It will be the documentation that
> users will refer to when they need to know, rather than the list
> discussio
From: "Felipe Contreras"
John Szakmeister wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
[snip]
Similarly, if a user does core.mode = next, the user is expecting to
enable all
future behaviors, because that's what core.mode = next does, if he
doesn't want
to do that, then
John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, John Szakmeister
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > "probably a minority" -- I guess that's the part I disagree with. I'm
> > not sure what a minority means here, but I don't think it'll be a
> > handful of people. How big does that number get befor
John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least
> > that option is not in question.
>
> True.
>
> > Presumably you are worried about the other options that can't be enab
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> 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.
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:03:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > not some "next" behavior that may change in future.
> >
> > But I'm suggesting to add a core.addremove option as well, like you
> > suggested,
> > am I not?
>
> Yes, I think we both agreed on adding
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:54 AM, John Szakmeister wrote:
[snip]
> "probably a minority" -- I guess that's the part I disagree with. I'm
> not sure what a minority means here, but I don't think it'll be a
> handful of people. How big does that number get before we get
> concerned about backlash f
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
[snip]
> We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least
> that option is not in question.
True.
> Presumably you are worried about the other options that can't be enabled in
> any
> way.
Yes.
> But think ab
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
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:03:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > not some "next" behavior that may change in future.
>
> But I'm suggesting to add a core.addremove option as well, like you suggested,
> am I not?
Yes, I think we both agreed on adding core.addremove. I'm just not
convinced if
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> 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,
John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Mazur
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > >
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
b
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experienc
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > But with core.mode = next af
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible
> > > > change witho
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > >
> > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible
> > > change without any warning.
> >
> > Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >
> > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible
> > change without any warning.
>
> Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean, why would the user set
> core.mode=
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:04:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > > So that we can specify general modes of operation, specifically, add the
> > > > 'next' mode, which m
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:04:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > So that we can specify general modes of operation, specifically, add the
> > > 'next' mode, which makes Git pre v2.0 behave as Git v
Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:04:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > So that we can specify general modes of operation, specifically, add the
> > 'next' mode, which makes Git pre v2.0 behave as Git v2.0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> > ---
>
> I don't think
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 02:04:45AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> So that we can specify general modes of operation, specifically, add the
> 'next' mode, which makes Git pre v2.0 behave as Git v2.0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
I don't think that single option it's a good idea. Fr
So that we can specify general modes of operation, specifically, add the
'next' mode, which makes Git pre v2.0 behave as Git v2.0.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
builtin/add.c | 13
cache.h| 6 ++
config.c | 13
environment.c |
25 matches
Mail list logo
