Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > > > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible > > > change without any warning. > > > > Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean, why would the user set > > core.mode=next, if the user doesn't want to experencie incompatible changes? A > > user that sets this mode is expecting incompatible changes, and will be willing > > to test them, and report back if there's any problem with them. > > With your patch, because it's the only way to have 'git add' v2.0. Yeah, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suggested to have *both* a fined-tunned way to have this behavior, say core.addremove = true, and a way to enable *all* v2.0 behaviors (core.mode = next). If we have both, and the user sets core.mode = next, that means the user wants *all* the incompatible changes. > But if another git v2.0 incompatible change will be added it will not > be warned, because with core.mode=next he decided to enable also > future changes and that's why I would never set that. That's fine, you wouldn't set that, but I would. That's why it's a configuration. > > > I think it's better to keep the old behavior by default and warn the user if > > > with new behavior the result might be different. So the user: > > > > > > a) knows about the change > > > > > > b) may set appropriate option to enable the new default or keep > > > the old behavior and disable the warning > > > > > > c) may report that he does not like that change > > > > But that's what we are doing already. Look at the test I wrote, it's testing > > the warnings for the current version of Git. > > With pull.default we did that, but with git add v2.0 now we only warn > the user. With your patch he can enable new git add (and disable warning), > but he also enables future incompatible changes and disables > warnings for such changes. Yeah, but I suggested to have *both* a fine-tunned option and a general one, didn't I? > He also cannot keep the old behaviour and disable the warning. He cannot do that regardless if my patch is merged or not. > > > I don't see the change in "git add" as an improvement, because > > > removing files with "git add" IMHO is more confusing than ignoring > > > such files. Maybe introducing new command - "git update" for instance - > > > which is equivalent to new "git add" and teaching new users to use it > > > instead of "git add" is better. > > > > I agree. At first I simply ignored the changes because I didn't have the > > patience to figure out what exactly did they mean. Now I was forced to > > understand them to write this patch, and I'm also forcing myself to use this > > behavior. > > > > 'git add' removing files is counter-intutive, 'git stage' (currently an alias > > to 'git add') might make more sense. > > Yeah, 'git stage' as an alias to 'git add -A' is much more intuitive. Agreed. -- 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