From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git push origin error (1.6.3 new default functionality) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20090513090317.GA3421@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <81bfc67a0905111826y779555cer6679da11db787ab1@mail.gmail.com> <4A09594F.4040603@drmicha.warpmail.net> <81bfc67a0905122226p113e4aa5y2a3523ac63de77fc@mail.gmail.com> <20090513083203.GA25058@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4A0A8871.6080107@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Caleb Cushing , Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 13 11:03:32 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 1M4AN6-00066b-NR for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 13 May 2009 11:03:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757922AbZEMJDS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757411AbZEMJDS (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:18 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:45581 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753016AbZEMJDR (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 13317 invoked by uid 107); 13 May 2009 09:03:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:18 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 May 2009 05:03:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0A8871.6080107@viscovery.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:44:33AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Unfortunately, the case with this warning is not that "simple" because it > is not about a planned change of the default behavior, but about a default > behavior that may be unexpected for newbies (see the release notes of > 1.6.3). I *can* understand that Caleb is upset by the warning, since he's > comfortable with the (current and future) default behavior. But I don't > know what to do in cases like these. I thought this was in preparation for an eventual change, but I might be wrong (1.6.3 introduced several such warnings). Regardless, my point was: the warning was introduced for a purpose (either to point out potentially confusing behavior, or to warn the user about an upcoming change in default behavior). Showing up now and saying "I don't like this warning" without addressing any of the points in the original discussion or making any sort of proposal to try to accomplish the same goals is just counterproductive. -Peff