On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:35:18PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> > Yes, dying would be a regression, in that you would have to configure >> > your name via the environment and re-run rather than type it at the >> > prompt. You raise a good point that for people who _could_ take the >> > implicit default, hitting "enter" is working fine now, and we would lose >> > that. I'd be fine with also just continuing to prompt in the implicit >> > case. >> > >> > But that is a much smaller issue to me than having send-email fail to >> > respect environment variables and silently use user.*, which is what >> > started this whole discussion. And I agree it is worth considering as a >> > regression we should avoid. >> >> It might be smaller, I don't think so. A hypothetical user that was >> relying on GIT_AUTHOR for whatever reason can switch to 'git >> send-email --from' (which is much easier) when they notice the >> failure, the same way somebody relying on fqdn would. The difference >> is that people with fqdn do exist, and they might be relying on this. >> >> Both are small issues, that I agree with. >> >> But the point is that you seem to be very adamant about _my_ >> regressions, and not pay much attention about yours. > > Really? I mentioned initially the possibility of dying instead of > prompting. You raised the point that it would regress a certain use > case. And then what happened? I said above "you raise a good point[...]. > I'd be fine with also just continuing to prompt[...]. I agree it is > worth considering as a regression we should avoid". And then I sent out > a patch series which does not have the regression. > > In other words, my suggestion was a bad one, and once it was pointed > out, I did not pursue it. If you want to call that "not paying much > attention", feel free. But I'd much rather you point out problems in my > actual patch series. But that I meant that when I introduce a regression it's like I'm killing all that is good and sacred about git, and when you do it's everything but that. Yes, you sent a new patch. So did I. >> The second patch doesn't have this issue. It does change the behavior >> of 'git commit', yeah, but I think that's a benefit. > > Changing "git commit" is even something I would entertain. It would be a > regression for some people, but at least it buys us something (increased > safety against people making bogus commits and failing to notice the > warning). I'm undecided on whether that is worth it or not. > > But when you presented it, as far as I could tell the change in behavior > to "git commit" was accidental (which is why I pointed it out in > response). How could it be accidental if I said this: "Not only will this fix 'git send-email', but it will also fix 'git commit'". > And as it was in the middle of a discussion about whether > regressions matter, That was not the discussion at all. You can't say that all regressions are the same, and if I say "regression X doesn't matter", that means ALL regressions don't matter. That's a hasty generalization. > If you want to seriously propose changing the behavior of "git commit", > I think the best thing would be to make a real patch, laying out the > pros and cons in the commit message, and post it. I would not be > surprised if the other list participants have stopped reading our thread > at this point, and the idea is going otherwise unnoticed. I would, if I saw any chance in it actually going through. >> Or: >> >> 4. Just stop prompting >> >> I already sent a patch for 4. with all the details of why nobody (or >> very few, if any) would be affected negatively. > > If doing (2) were really hard, that might be worth considering. But it's > not. I already did it. So I don't see how this is an attractive option, > unless my series is so unpalatable that we would rather accept a > regression. A matter of opinion. I think that series introduces way too much code for a very very small gain that eventually would probably disappear. >> > [1/6]: ident: make user_ident_explicitly_given private >> > [2/6]: ident: keep separate "explicit" flags for author and committer >> > [3/6]: var: accept multiple variables on the command line >> > [4/6]: var: provide explicit/implicit ident information >> > [5/6]: Git.pm: teach "ident" to query explicitness >> > [6/6]: send-email: do not prompt for explicit repo ident >> >> I think this adds a lot of code that nobody would use. > > A lot of code? It is mostly refactoring, Patch #1 and #3 are refactoring, the rest are not. > which IMHO makes the resulting > code cleaner, and it increases the utility of "git var", and our test > coverage. If you have review comments, then by all means, respond to the > series. I don't have any comments, except that I don't think all that code is needed. And why would I bother commenting there, if my opinion will be ignored? >> > I do not necessarily agree on "git commit". Moreover, I feel like it is >> > a separate issue. My series above _just_ implements the "do not prompt >> > when explicit" behavior. It does not deal with git-commit at all, nor >> > does it address the author/committer fallback questions. Those can >> > easily go on top. >> >> Yes, at the cost of adding a lot of code. If we end up agreeing that >> the changes to 'git commit' are desirable (which I hope at some point >> we will), then this code would be all for nothing. > > If we are going to change "git commit" immediately, then I agree there > is not much point merging my series. But even if we do change it, will > we do so immediately? Will there be a deprecation period? If so, then my > series helps send-email in the meantime. And it's already written, so > you do not even have to do anything. Yes, but it still adds a lot of code. >> I want clarify that this is merely a disagreement to at which level >> should we worry about regressions. On one side of the spectrum you >> have projects like GNOME, who don't have any problem breaking the >> user-experience from one release to the next, I'm not proposing >> anything like that. On the other side I think it's you, because I >> don't recall encountering anybody with such an extreme position of >> never introducing a regression ever if there's absolutely no evidence >> that anybody is using certain feature. > > I don't think that's a fair characterization of my position. I am fine > with introducing a regression if there is a large benefit to it, and > especially if the regression is mutually exclusive with the benefit. For > example, look at IDENT_STRICT. We used to allow broken email addresses > in commits, and it was _me_ who pushed forward the change to disallow > it. That potentially regressed people who would rather have junk in the > commit objects than configure their identity (e.g., because they are > creating commits on the backend of some automated process). But we > discussed it, and the breakage was worth the increased safety for normal > users. We could not have it both ways, since the safety came at the > expense of switching the default. > > But with this topic, we had a too-safe default (a safety prompt that was > sometimes overkill). We can have our cake and eat it, too: drop the > prompt for the overkill cases, but leave the other cases untouched. And > that is what I tried to do in my series. Note that this _still_ > regresses certain use cases. What if I have configured my user.email, > but I am expecting send-email to prompt me so I can put in some other > random value. But we can't improve the prompting and leave that case > there; they are mutually exclusive. But IMHO, the benefit outweighs the > possibility of breakage. That's true, so we will be introducing a regression regardless. Now, if we go with this patch: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/209660 Instead of your patch series, who will get hurt? Hint: I already answered that question. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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