On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:51:41PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > I don't see what is the problem. We haven't had the need for push.default = > simplewarning, have we? If you want the warning, you don't change anything, if simplewarning makes no sense, because push.default=simple sets exact behavior, not some "next" behavior that may change in future. For instance, I was very unhappy once, when git pull failed and said that I should do git pull --merge. > you want to specify something, you already know what you are doing. > > > Maybe we should also add core.mode=next-warn that changes defaults like next > > but keeps warnings enabled until the user accepts that change by setting > > appropriate config option? > > Maybe, but would you actually use that option? No. > > > That's safer than next (at least for interactive use) and maybe more users > > would use that, but I don't think that's worth adding. > > Maybe, but I don't think many users would use either mode, and that's good. > > > For me, old behavior by default and warnings with information how to > > enable new incompatible features, is sufficient. So I don't need > > core.mode option, but as long it will be useful for other users I have > > nothing against it. > > OK, but that seems to mean you don't need core.mode = next-warn either. I'm not > against adding such a mode, but I would like to hear about _somebody_ that > would like to actually use it. I don't like to program for ghosts. > As I said earlier, I don't think that next-warn it's worth adding, but such option might increase the number of people interested in the core.mode. Krzysiek -- 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