On Tuesday 20 October 2009 17:11:32 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > ... > > There would not be a configuration option. > > ... > > > >> It's not even funny. > > Re-read what you were responding to and notice that I was commenting on > Wesley's proposal that _is_ about a configuration variable. Yes, I brought up the configuration variable, not Thomas. My main goal was to try to suggest a transition plan that would be less painful, but maybe it was actually worse. After reading Junio's response I think I agree that going down that path might be the worst of both worlds, but the basic model I was proposing (even if it's a bad idea in this case) was largely basing on (my perceived impression of) how the recent changes to push behavior were staged (i.e. with deprecation, new configuration variables, etc). I still think that, long term, making push and pull symmetric, EITHER by 1) making push also update the working tree (in some sane way that I don't have a proposal for) or 2) making pull be just about transfering objects, not also merging (in some reasonable way that doesn't break useability, like also adding "git update" or something at the same time) would be an overall benefit. -- 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