| apologies - missed the list I agree that removing the options is better than preserving the current behaviour, My argument is simply this: That it is better to inform a user that an action is potentially dangerous than to "protect" them from a "scaring" amount of diff -c output by presenting a conflict-only summary. You claimed this output was "uninteresting" and hence should be suppressed, my point was that supresssing output because it was "uninteresting" is a dangerous thing to do because it is relevant to a decision not to act. My preference for options are: * preserve the actions, but provide more information to the user * remove the actions * preserve the actions, make the safer output the default and enable the simpler, more dangerous output as an option * preserve the actions, make the current output the default and enable the safer, less dangerous output an option. * do nothing We disagree about the relative order of options 1 and 2. But seriously, if you agree the actions are dangerous I can't see how you can argue that is preferable to suppress the scary amount of diff -c output. I would imagine that a change that proposed to remove the actions, without an option to enable them, would encounter stiff resistance from the list. However, perhaps the list can respond? jon. -- 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