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 1970E13FEE for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 03:32:49 +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=1790566371; cv=none; b=rFVqD7I1xg4ywL4j8OGsvw+QlrwllNzMxDmHPM+oPS87LdxwKdOITYuNNiTnV7S3j7isx++Hu7TOONi8XrQDeF+nbPR5kUT5dNztUpOAdJSFrNNcvGobrGcxXfv6nHNsab/e/po5nzULPsr9XZBOmqDf63ThGfOnzOM8DK9SXw4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790566371; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VRlHAa9ZtA4UnsV3VOQXnsOoZkc3RNNBxjfVN0b5o4k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DEF7xVGPjJs/+HluRrdpOJp/jpMJeCOwWfqwUrLWXT66ZIqzJrWmrN5XPC4bIGxUhjGJpJ56GPbHpAS3NSkkDLSHbzzHj1SFv+od1hntLbAYi3Wy0c5Qw4d9cb9rJyBx9fAymKz7wftYrKFJxz8hCiQYG/nc4P/7FTtKhcJqRJA= 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=Q6iSNEVp; 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="Q6iSNEVp" Received: (qmail 63706 invoked by uid 106); 28 Sep 2026 03:32:48 -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=VRlHAa9ZtA4UnsV3VOQXnsOoZkc3RNNBxjfVN0b5o4k=; b=Q6iSNEVpkU+8R/jVEfpH39BCcLjjWAovQbT+LOxMZmD7EIzvyHfztlLa59uYPriYxDvZg23az9oTKsxRcNuiyLGC0gVMFG2yXXO6RtGnVNmPP6yHD0cSdgrg05gzJIlCEH4K4FwdLAkPtdesPviO2twC6Q8jgXsL/1s3oiHSImWcYLs6G7+oZhXDSWBhta6+tOL2uOtWw53ph8Fp0rmvix4vX6TNcqB3H+f42hgTmIKDknVGqv5AaPVaByatPQ77yvzEstpQQ/304oHGHO/NJEPe3crAmAG5n9EHXgs3jzSi/G01D53nYXTwq3k8TgGmdpOe7kbFd+TUppFRreOo+g== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 03:32:48 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 237819 invoked by uid 111); 28 Sep 2026 03:32:48 -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; Sun, 27 Sep 2026 23:32:48 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 23:32:47 -0400 From: Jeff King To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Cc: Junio C Hamano , Harald Nordgren , ps@pks.im, git@vger.kernel.org, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net, Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: Changing default config values (was Re: What will come after Git 2.56?) Message-ID: <20260928033247.GB493672@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260924183523.53201-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com> <7ccc822a-6bd0-44e2-8d6b-ca525d729207@gmail.com> 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: <7ccc822a-6bd0-44e2-8d6b-ca525d729207@gmail.com> On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 02:48:31PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > One way we could change the default values of a set of config variables is > to have a config variable, say "core.defaults", that determines the default > values of the config variables we'd like to change. That would allow us to > have a set of "modern defaults" that can evolve over time and can be easily > enabled or disabled (a bit like "feature.experimental"). We may want to > extend the concept slightly so that different values for "core.defaults" > tune the defaults for different workflows; for example having a setting that > implies "push.default=current" and "status.compareBranches=@{upstream} > @{push}" for triangular workflows. If we take the approach suggested above, > the modern defaults could be enabled by default and it would be easy for > users to opt-out by setting a single config variable. I dunno. There can be some convenience in setting foo.bar that covers a bunch of other related config options. And I'd have no objection to feature.triangular or something that changes the fallback defaults for a few relevant options (which could of course still be individually overridden). But I'm not sure what core.defaults is buying us. If I understand, you're thinking that setting core.defaults to "modern" would give new values for a bunch of defaults. But why wouldn't we just switch the defaults? I can think of two reasons: 1. It might break scripts or other automated flows. But then, so would config.defaults=modern (or using the individual config options themselves). 2. It might anger old-timers who like the current defaults. But why not just switch the defaults, and let the old-timers use the existing config to escape-hatch back? If there's not consensus over the defaults, _somebody_ is going to be annoyed by whatever we pick. It's probably reasonable to pick the one that annoys the fewest people, though I think we instead tend to go with status quo inertia. Which, to be fair, is not entirely unreasonable simply because we don't actually _know_ what will annoy the fewest people. So changing nothing is often a safe guess. -Peff