Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Sanitize sideband channel messages

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>  * I would have preferred to see the early parts of the series all
>>    being opt-in, and that subset of the series be able to graduate
>>    earlier.  Way earlier than the default flip to prove that they do
>>    not hurt when unconfigured (they are theoretically no-op while
>>    being opt-in, but we want to make sure), and that they do help
>>    when configured.  And then once we are satisfied, the default
>>    flip can be discussed and applied.
>
> Thinking about this a bit more, I see a strong reason to prefer the
> way the series in this iteration is constructed.  We could merge the
> early parts down to 'next' well before the last piece, and hopefully
> we will know how much what they are already using breaks (and we
> know colors are use in the field, and we know by default we pass
> colors, so this is to catch other uses of control sequences) by
> filtering among those who are running 'next' for their every-day
> work, before the main part of the series leaves 'master'.
>
> If we did it the other way around, even if we mergee everything to
> 'next', the guinea-pig population will be limited to those who build
> 'next' with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES, which would be a lot smaller
> minority (I suspect that nobody uses a build with
> WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES for their every-day work, actually).
>
> So I no longer think the "no-op by default first and then tighten at
> the end with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES" is my preference.

The other two points I still care about.

Others have any opinion on the topic?