From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,FSL_HELO_FAKE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0DFC10DCE for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CB6206FA for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lM5xglh2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726534AbgCLTMR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:12:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:44608 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725268AbgCLTMR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:12:17 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id 37so3518405pgm.11 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:12:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=oevakREtdLSj50/5ZUd/HWwTertLDv243Xr25tNFGZc=; b=lM5xglh205f1YhplP/RsY0v9saWkBRSANZnm5WEhBD92XPZxVMwB0WAt2snAikEoJL MXb31Gl4qv4dYCzwn5u+5Lnij7ypW7xmKIpsgYRCDDkTMRKBQij2OfjvyzGcyZGVr7Qo Dfa+BzqEDMb789Iqknog8+yhmExvIsUqIaBf93ND9hnFRSiR5+h5v2emQYrsKYTTww3R spcamweYSxB7ybZTYE8JG2Mc7wpl3n0nuWvKh6At/X73BDwLZ3FFxD4cIuwTHhIZoGdn X+tkiFxm1P9cQKGue4+rwknwLPwVuDyGwZ8DvAYb1G77Mhzzxgr7v93BbV4CxPM4iLCB 6uhQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=oevakREtdLSj50/5ZUd/HWwTertLDv243Xr25tNFGZc=; b=dYGadIlwONxuw2cSu09F0L0H2DJ/9x+rx804DhBA7DL5Bgt/e/kCR3fUZQtR8rIiv1 phgcv5soRV8FtuPxWkMnAojZJ9/Q+kQLoTFbVNCD5y3UUnlUzmKkn4xgQwGOX6y9hMZx DRvhzqTETFUTmSc8a2GjLiqNJTEdK85JPCUMnu5GlgNdej0LzvDahbow0rdMGy8E/hDR NxufaA+YgRFThlwAsB9KQ3+Z58EGMJxN5yyVL1/GLjO6lOeWhfr6LQm8nBe0OhdtE8+c lBZlYRmA3oAmdAcRT38RX5L3xXvHETxDW0mV7/fW2OFY9VjPXybto90nuVbpDs3EdlRK pYdw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2q9fUFv6jxNEcFTMwtyxJyh1Zi+UKeoolK0wQLectEVDomfYO4 c7+xm4JCv+cQGOrWhWUDY68= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsjVAKeJV3YmsDPYk654Mn5bXDYiPbAlPyyWiYk27MVaW6r6NEp/UdFAcGVw2P0OspeBA6lwQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:180c:: with SMTP id y12mr9603554pgl.120.1584040335748; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:cf67:1de0:170f:be65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j24sm26158035pfi.55.2020.03.12.12.12.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:12:13 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren , Emily Shaffer , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin , Phillip Wood , Denton Liu , Pavel Roskin , Alban Gruin , SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 20/20] rebase: rename the two primary rebase backends Message-ID: <20200312191213.GE120942@google.com> References: <20200312151318.GM212281@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: >> I'm a little worried about ignoring the setting and just picking one; > > I am more than a little worried, too. I think erroring out is > warranted in this case for exactly the reason you gave here. To avoid misunderstandings: have you read the proposal I made that aims to avoid that problem? Thanks, Jonathan >> if the setting has been marked and they set it to e.g. "appply" (one >> too many p's), then does it really make sense to just show a warning >> but continue using the backend they didn't want, especially since they >> may miss the warning among the rest of the output? I'd rather go the >> route of improving the message, perhaps: >> _("Unknown rebase.backend config setting: %s")