From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Mazur Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:34:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20131016063436.GB24964@shrek.podlesie.net> References: <20131014205908.GA17089@shrek.podlesie.net> <525c63b6711fa_197a905e845b@nysa.notmuch> <20131015123505.GA3097@shrek.podlesie.net> <525d35e766ad4_55661275e7426@nysa.notmuch> <20131015133327.GA22723@shrek.podlesie.net> <525d4354a5436_5844e73e843d@nysa.notmuch> <20131015145139.GA3977@shrek.podlesie.net> <525d8ebd19c67_5feab61e8037@nysa.notmuch> <20131015220125.GA14021@shrek.podlesie.net> <525e100e45ee8_81a151de74ed@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 16 08:34:46 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VWKgv-0003V3-2y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:34:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753633Ab3JPGel (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 02:34:41 -0400 Received: from shrek-wifi.podlesie.net ([93.179.225.50]:56035 "EHLO shrek.podlesie.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751250Ab3JPGek (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 02:34:40 -0400 Received: by shrek.podlesie.net (Postfix, from userid 603) id CA68878; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:34:36 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <525e100e45ee8_81a151de74ed@nysa.notmuch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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 we should also add core.mode. > > So you would be happy if we had core.addremove = true *and* core.mode = next, > right? You would use one, different people with different needs would use the > other. Yes, if there are people that will use core.mode it will be worth adding. I'm just not one of them. > > > > > 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 > > core.mode. > > Well that's a hypothesis, and I would be interested in finding out if that's > true, but until I see somebody that says "I want core.mode = next-war", I'm > going to assume they are hypothetical. > Yes, that's just a hypothesis. Krzysiek