From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0985839AD51 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 16:31:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789057886; cv=none; b=FWsf0dIe1ZDmfrR/PecmniyBh//Jzh/7xVPGk0KLnMIPglX02/NfAjNxo191hiOitvLj1ZeTX4FurJNmDZ/Dy1gun/y6WGtDjYSr+Iznw9ltcAJek4I2K+JpP4ip6QzcSCMncLchOggwtEBIOOISwQ299GECVMoa/fasMRFH6D8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789057886; c=relaxed/simple; bh=efGBCczhare3B757q2GP1woPRfnBt2fOLKC5+Ad7cuA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LLebWzqZG3BfhtJxXPBLELgQXpTzL4GzqBqFuCD8DsdmU3JUAjlIOrPCUVOKVzBETeN/XBnLnULYLJ8FCf6OwJFk5OtP529Rfd59k1omKvzlrKkt7zJfDxFQ6DE5YimXZ+Mh57IzxSXxGjc2lWkxstMvzADhNWCBwpj9Z/Ljdas= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=K77L/8W4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="K77L/8W4" Received: (qmail 31296 invoked by uid 106); 10 Sep 2026 16:31:21 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=efGBCczhare3B757q2GP1woPRfnBt2fOLKC5+Ad7cuA=; b=K77L/8W4+dPvPsNF3os3f+P/qCsfjjWkb8zIPQtkLmidWHRcvAKsjUT7lr74u18Upe/yxsEqu/u+maaO0ly6t9aFe3NWE3cJ/cIN2kZsL3hAPV9MGpcICcpZVQv+oqY48WdmhppOacfb1VxOylsffgJJo+zmdnOTLK7JQGgC4FDueDoy3NHPTTWz282FPbHOaK0qa0cpwu7w03a5Pm7u5njfEafihqBOZLRt7WOrG5zYcAYE+6ZZmuWnVMH+56yG0Vsed33FSrHPd6Blt+OOZagiyqdU1t+PmZI4Ajv99tdUOa00TrecRnbhtf/88f1STRJg4lqfJoIjilFczV/LZQ== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 16:31:21 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 157495 invoked by uid 111); 10 Sep 2026 16:31:21 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:31:21 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:31:20 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Vsevolod Myalitsin , ben.knoble@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] advice: use global config for default branch name Message-ID: <20260910163120.GD251185@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260908213840.37833-1-ub4nal@mail.ru> <20260909155440.GA94069@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260909195132.GA182066@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260910043356.GB241223@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 05:18:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > But I think the bigger question remains: if we did this, would people > > find the extra lines giving the turn-off instructions ugly/overwhelming? > > I'm not sure. > > Well, if they find them unnecessary then they would want to turn it > off and the instruction is already there ;-) Well, it would certainly increase my desire to turn each one off. ;) I guess you can set it to "true" to suppress the turn-off instructions (but keep the advice itself). > More seriously, if an advice item is found as such, then the item > either must (1) be beneficial enough to be always shown, or (2) be > so rarely shown that the turn-off instruction is unneeded. It would > inherently be case-by-case basis but I do think we would converge > between unconditional advise() calls or advise_if_enabled() calls. Right, I was wondering specifically if there are items in (1), but you said it much better than I did. I guess we wouldn't know until we try it and see people's reactions, though. -Peff