From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink Subject: Re: [RFC - draft] List of proposed future changes that are backward incompatible Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:07:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20090216090741.GB16453@atjola.homenet> References: <7vk57ridyx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090216080432.GA16453@atjola.homenet> <7viqnabwb3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: david@lang.hm, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 16 10:09:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LYzTW-0002k0-DR for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:09:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752007AbZBPJHs convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:07:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751864AbZBPJHr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:07:47 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46390 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751191AbZBPJHq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:07:46 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2009 09:07:44 -0000 Received: from i577B93FF.versanet.de (EHLO atjola.local) [87.123.147.255] by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 16 Feb 2009 10:07:44 +0100 X-Authenticated: #5039886 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+luklyP2KlFstV9sOBt8r5piPPS3dIjGoQyn6hZJ GsVGBGru2H50M4 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7viqnabwb3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.67 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2009.02.16 00:49:52 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Bj=F6rn Steinbrink writes: >=20 > > How about having the default in the code being a warning, but the > > default for new repos being "reject"? >=20 > To reserve time to manage git itself, I will try not to point people = to > previous discussions, but I'd like help from people who've already se= en > the previous discussions to do so. This is one of the things that wa= s > proposed and already shot down. OK, I'm sorry. Seems that my quick look through the other thread was to= o quick :-( Bj=F6rn