On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:03:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > not some "next" behavior that may change in future. > > But I'm suggesting to add a core.addremove option as well, like you suggested, > am I not? Yes, I think we both agreed on adding core.addremove. I'm just not convinced if we should also add core.mode. > > So you would be happy if we had core.addremove = true *and* core.mode = next, > right? You would use one, different people with different needs would use the > other. Yes, if there are people that will use core.mode it will be worth adding. I'm just not one of them. > > > > > 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. > > Well that's a hypothesis, and I would be interested in finding out if that's > true, but until I see somebody that says "I want core.mode = next-war", I'm > going to assume they are hypothetical. > Yes, that's just a hypothesis. 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