Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Thanks for saying this concisely, and saving me from repeating this. >> >> I just don't think one should have to explicitly set something to shut >> warnings up. defaults are there for a reason. next thing you know it's >> going to ask me if I'd like to continue, and then it will ask me to >> press n for next. >> >> Why even have them? > > Why do you waste other people's time after repeatedly told this was > discussed to death and everything is recoded in the list archive? You know what is most frustrating for me with this whole thing? As you might have guessed already, I am one of the oldest users of git, am accustomed to the way "matching push" works, and I like it as a sensible default behaviour for _my workflow_. If I, Linus and you were the only git users, there won't be these half-page-full of warning messages. But there are others, and one of them was motivated enough to write a patch series to introduce push.default that allows a setting that may be more suitable than 'matching' in certain workflows, even though I may not ever use that workflow in my projects myself. This early vaccination approach was the least evil solution proposed back then (which I think was modelled after the already in-progress "deny git push from updating the current branch" topic), and you were not around to know that I even toned down the series not to make it too strongly suggest that the default will change. No, "you were not around" part is not what is frustrating. What is frustrating is that the original author who felt strongly enough against 'matching' default to write the patch is not defending the change in this thread, and I have to spend time writing responses like this that I otherwise could be using for something else to improve the project with. And what is even more frustrating is that I cannot afford the time to repeat the full discussion here (nor I have inclinations to), and if you are the type who does not do his own homework, it would appear to you as if I am all for changing the default and as if I am being unreasonable. I do not mind appearing to be a bad guy to you or anybody per-se, but I think people who got what they wanted earlier should come and defend the reason why they got what they wanted. I am nice enough not to threaten them by saying something like "since nobody seems to be serious enough to defend this earlier change, let's change our mind and get rid of that warning" ;-) Oh, I already anticipate that I'll have the same frustration defending the "deny git push from updating the current branch" that was settled eons ago. I am not looking forward to it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html