From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:51:41 -0500 Message-ID: <525d8ebd19c67_5feab61e8037@nysa.notmuch> References: <1381561485-20252-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Mazur , Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 15 21:02:52 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 1VW9tK-0003lS-Nz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:02:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759677Ab3JOTCr (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:02:47 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:65113 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759580Ab3JOTCq (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:02:46 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g12so1686057oah.19 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iQEq4VvA9kVj1L2phMoTvCjnrajhho304PlFoWc3m0Y=; b=kUVfRI2R1qnP+wyeqxfQm5alzYAkN6Fgal91Gd6T2yFVeth9NtyKdKKrTWuO2/J6CS O1B30oEjnemFsPkiTgKqQu81CDe7SENjJm6P8PqWn+Bct1grW+ian1A6ISBYvp62QocK 44QDnoCCIk9yDn84BZ+7KXPKVR6wQF+ePj1uQCByovct4VDsrbq5u+6tB3n4AEj01tKX /NycLL+yifPJRAIKhgL7n82gPYAE07FqhdABb1nHZVviq7lBF9H8aKVaDvZveH4j/IQI G7LtUGz6gdfc1qleX8ySKuNlmmsKC5kSJDPbTZwrq1/PjggbAjINVIfrWVkAL9lodZZ4 NmeQ== X-Received: by 10.182.73.231 with SMTP id o7mr11273619obv.34.1381863765285; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187-162-140-241.static.axtel.net. [187.162.140.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r6sm52535381obi.14.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:02:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131015145139.GA3977@shrek.podlesie.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible > > > > > change without any warning. > > > > > > > > Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean, why would the user set > > > > core.mode=next, if the user doesn't want to experencie incompatible changes? A > > > > user that sets this mode is expecting incompatible changes, and will be willing > > > > to test them, and report back if there's any problem with them. > > > > > > With your patch, because it's the only way to have 'git add' v2.0. > > > > Yeah, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suggested to have *both* a > > fined-tunned way to have this behavior, say core.addremove = true, and a way to > > enable *all* v2.0 behaviors (core.mode = next). > > I'm just not sure if a lot of users would use core.mode=next, I'm not sure if a lot of urser would even notice the difference. > because of possible different behavior without any warning. I don't see what is the problem. We haven't had the need for push.default = simplewarning, have we? If you want the warning, you don't change anything, if you want to specify something, you already know what you are doing. > Maybe we should also add core.mode=next-warn that changes defaults like next > but keeps warnings enabled until the user accepts that change by setting > appropriate config option? Maybe, but would you actually use that option? > 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. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras