On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:55:07PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > John Szakmeister wrote: > > > > I like the idea that we could kick git into a mode that applies the > > behaviors we're talking about having in 2.0, but I'm concerned about > > one aspect of it. Not having these behaviors until 2.0 hits means > > we're free to renege on our decisions in favor of something better, or > > to pull out a bad idea. But once we insert this knob, I don't know > > that we have the same ability. Once people realize it's there and > > start using it, it gets harder to back out. I guess we could maintain > > the stance that "the features are not concrete yet," or something like > > that, but I think people would still get upset if something changes > > out from under them. > > We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least > that option is not in question. If we add core.addremove=true the same applies to it - we cannot remove it later, the only we can do is to disable it by default in future versions after testing (core.addremove=true or core.mode=next). > > So, at the end of the day, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile to have. > > This is exactly what happened on 1.6; nobody really tested the 'git foo' > behavior, so we just switched from one version to the next. If you are not > familiar with the outcome; it wasn't good. BTW, I'm still using pre-1.6 git-foo, I have /usr/libexec/git-core in my PATH. So I would like to always have an option to disable some new incompatible "improvements". > > So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow > users (probably a minority) to start testing this. > and an option to keep the old behavior, like we did with push.default. 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