From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.155]) (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 78FEF2E406 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:23:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737487405; cv=none; b=UIegVZY1qPsvpbvzR9gSX30hpBVMNJmJbOJZF1+t03lJSoKsP/xcPu93r68/rvkqId6qRgMHkIeFo8/czjsztc+WFT7AcmnOA6EAmcho9zytN+6OE+DAWvwo7hUdbaF0ISCmaCS47330NYxXTw/WUCB5IYKtVqfKEHd+mC5XnWw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737487405; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DfjZt9hS4pqnBGuKfmSowYa/2eIdRLt2aUi3C7wYLBM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YXj3DraebA7ClhCUP4BZG8MmbR3yQyNeuKYYm7NME/b8eAr5lhlWeWshhtr6VElQpZVQKoCarP7lOx88Xd4h4ua6G/iDaVoI6h5nTyM8jbaefx6UjfOqsU4NyQeK5svJCrs21DHeOSbaXn0S8z0YEVxHimz3LhT+5tYLpcEHxbg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=UvyKafB8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=VKSxFyro; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="UvyKafB8"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VKSxFyro" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.phl.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830CA254019B; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:23:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1737487402; x=1737573802; bh=SF1iIIUk+E YCOumlsKcNEnWv3f0s9iviFWdkDgLtC+4=; b=UvyKafB8s0fClj7gjUtt8rarQd WzzwfE9vSxsmRmm4dMYfqSRcdjZkO2Q8hr9p2y+FeAVKc7DoXEbXNvONuFXXn+Js 7C0zZWIR+D2x0CmIYl4hAlb8yCvXGzDq5T8YVHmdYIi84ImkuqjnMZJF9Mq/hPuW Z6lPcifbMNbPgz+LtZArOulW+6in3C9/2TocXZTOMsDbsd+5uiSXAFejG6RAukkq Vmnrm1rUFoCnkmTGDPQ/dPgaI19fre0Udha0ITzLRbnVn+Z4DQsYoT5KnEi/1hoA J6bJN6y8UInFpA93RUKK5HDZx2B7YthF9b/oQHgpZKOlWBC/Y4kb8Q1lCMjA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1737487402; x=1737573802; bh=SF1iIIUk+EYCOumlsKcNEnWv3f0s9iviFWd kDgLtC+4=; b=VKSxFyrom1rZeW524RPZBRiiGcBXuEcC307zD4+87NmCIC2ouWJ 61GZV3REeKSE/ldyGf3dsWtqJrmOq9aR8Y7FNMxb1mvMcMfe8mtXSvdweEoh7PKq YZdJEvVW7omWAKcoB8FFjF0aNdFlIMzm1KGxRrXbzDXqTVIdgIvKXfAJvqCArt/J +ZXKgePhuoFIMZTjxHLaZqCmv0cuKjHnV65kz86LOd2uZ79Du1TWc2Ad1DmReASM iYViPOgakawfq8FC9vz8SlfA3s33Vc/8GN0w03oaIJD5dDO8tjCIbHeC5WjESBlo YngJ/lGkpUmbhVMIefFRsL9oRgeYDItBy2w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudejvddgleegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeej leeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghp thhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhhvihgusehgmh grihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdp rhgtphhtthhopehstghhrggtohhnsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhith hsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:23:21 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: David Aguilar Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Scott Chacon Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2025, #05; Fri, 17) In-Reply-To: (David Aguilar's message of "Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:53:06 -0800") References: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 11:23:20 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain David Aguilar writes: > (The text below is from the original thread; sorry I don't have it handy > so I just replied here instead) > >> ... but would it be simpler if we made it an extended boolean, i.e. >> >> true, yes, on, 1 -> same as "immediate" >> false, no, off, 0 -> same as "never" >> immediate -> same as what we currently do >> never -> same as what we currently do >> prompt -> same as what we currently do >> number -> same as what we currently do > > I do think that, "0 -> same as never," makes a lot of sense from a > usability perspective. I obviously do not agree. "Suggest the right spelling and let the user decide without time-bomb" is a very useful and safe UI, and the above summary was done by mistake. > I would instead recommend that, "1 -> same as prompt," would be a safer > and less surprising behavior. If the user wants "immediate" they can be > explicit about it. "immediate" is the most dangerous of all of these > options so adding ambiguous routes to it seems like a step backwards. Thanks for raising your concern. As somebody who does *not* use the time-bomb UI that makes me wait when the heuristics guessed correctly and forces me to scramble to hit \C-c when it didn't, I am not qualified to comment in favor of such a huge behaviour change, so I won't, and let others discuss. > I don't really think backwards-compatibility is much of a concern here > at all. It *would* be a concern if we were moving from a safe behavior > to a less-safe behavior (like this patch currently does) but not so in > the other direction like I'm proposing by making "1" mean "prompt".