From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] git send-email: Make --no-chain-reply-to the default Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:05:01 -0800 Message-ID: <7vpr7qgbjm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1257786206-9208-1-git-send-email-mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> <1257789555.4108.348.camel@laptop> <20091110040847.GC29454@elte.hu> <76718490911092112v4d1e7761ue98def756ed0d93b@mail.gmail.com> <20091110052211.GK7897@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jay Soffian , Peter Zijlstra , git@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 10 07:05:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1N7jr7-00073f-PO for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:05:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750999AbZKJGFJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750935AbZKJGFI (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:08 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:35188 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750934AbZKJGFH (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:07 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4027A91B; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=IZzD13LZfaPqs67uBr8e2UdBPpo=; b=hSJQq8 nZC6NLdHbdNEKoWeFtNRVIewC8xUsACNCX7DG8lRJ9YjVZ0aaApRCEMtMwO98GUf kLkREn0XVTJIaL5jXosKVAxB2KugdmGlrKeVRZ+Ibl6RpWzIwW83sgHR9jZwYXUQ 8SoM6/D8W7xxDMcT6Zczd8Xmr6t0sfM/G6E3E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=J09k/bc6NXtFFo/iYZoawhS7xhKkpBN1 KezFwkbPrviGQkUkAJh5LujoHC+vpg7jcP8Y0AEQuQsVVPQEDj/QIciX7yedIks7 2giBNllvYxuoCxZuFI1ikl04Jdj5nBayQGiP1b+J4dJYpdGYUOCbfHA9gK51G17v Hf02EbFcHwI= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86D97A91A; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB4F97A919; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:05:02 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20091110052211.GK7897@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Tue\, 10 Nov 2009 06\:22\:11 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FF4E8880-CDBE-11DE-878F-7B3EEE7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ingo Molnar writes: > +1 for putting it into a .1.6.x stable branch too. (Unless there's a > case where the recursive threading is actually useful and is being > relied on.) As I wrote in the LKML message when that patch was made (please see my other message for the URL to the archive), my assessment of this issue is that it would have been the right thing to do if we were doing this now without any existing users, but nobody really cares deeply enough either way to warrant fast tracking the schedule we promised back in August. It would take a bit stronger nudging than "unless there is a case against changing the default because it is being relied on", as I know that people who rely on would not speak up for a long time. We already saw that it took 6 month between Feb 2009 to Aug 2009 for people who wanted to change the default to notice and complain that the change they were promised did not happen ;-). Some people will complain when we switch the default to no-chain-reply-to in the 1.7.0 release. I am willing to take flak from them and defend the change. But I am not convinced that this deserves to be fast-tracked to the 1.6.x series. We gave them until 1.7.0 and I have no good answer to "why didn't you wait as you promised?" I'd rather avoid telling them that "that is how kernel people wanted it, and sorry, their wish trumps yours." if I can.