From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's in git.git (stable) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:54:45 -0800 Message-ID: <7vd566ciwq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vac1fy5ae.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <418215.90592.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Randal L. Schwartz" , Josef Weidendorfer X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 27 00:54:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GzM8A-0004zp-Mg for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:54:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932856AbWLZXyr (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:54:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932849AbWLZXyr (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:54:47 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:39716 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932840AbWLZXyq (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:54:46 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061226235445.TDQU97.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:54:45 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 3buy1W00u1kojtg0000000; Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:54:59 -0500 To: Luben Tuikov In-Reply-To: <418215.90592.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (Luben Tuikov's message of "Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:25:37 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Luben Tuikov writes: >> I am not quite sure about that. An old timer would work in a >> newly cloned repository after all, and what this "newbie >> protection" is breaking is not existing repositories but >> expectation from existing users. > > Hmm, "newbie protection" doesn't sound good. It sounds like > "screw the old-timers and let's change well-established workflow". As far as I am concerned, this is a topic already closed four days ago with commit fb8696d9. Are you way too behind, are you rubbing it in, or am I hallucinating and fb8696d9 did not actually fix it?