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 23:03:26 -0500 Message-ID: <525e100e45ee8_81a151de74ed@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> <525d8ebd19c67_5feab61e8037@nysa.notmuch> <20131015220125.GA14021@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 Wed Oct 16 06:15:03 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 1VWIVh-0002lL-9T for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:15:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751397Ab3JPEO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:14:57 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:61191 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750862Ab3JPEO5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:14:57 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id vb8so154887obc.18 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:14:56 -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=quYZtckxbHMAm4z2Qw+AQ2H85ZFpQbngKI9iQ1jieYo=; b=hqlfsKKnADXZgwr/9eeyUd0GOej6n8Z2NgWE5AdQRamsBRCpak8Ot6KU6pxsFhdLaR q6EVLFKLL5FllTKu/5I04Ybm/c/qZpWrUSFZDF2hMB9zaVWKo/EtaZwEtPSghlWQ5vfH V6moJBtfUvpfO8hrFDs16BEXqKfVl6EwxwphupqthU5JXHlQhrqCTM1Q3R1IpSx7c/9g hL1Jb3wHfa6bSuLAd17VITAUk6yLt1xgW2Xl/XSNf6NpEFPXHfOg6XKba5WU6HvNdMvz guJnoJqQD/QeEhPi3Pk1Hv+KYK3UK5XSxIJDRyUM9qxWP4FJP9ZJHqcmW7CGOO0bNtcK 3p0g== X-Received: by 10.182.60.194 with SMTP id j2mr1199840obr.2.1381896895639; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187-162-140-241.static.axtel.net. [187.162.140.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bq4sm57639578obb.1.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:14:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131015220125.GA14021@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 01:51:41PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > 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 > > simplewarning makes no sense, because push.default=simple sets exact > behavior, Exactly. > 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? That option wouldn't change in the future. > > 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? > > No. 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. > > > 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. -- Felipe Contreras