On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:35:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I do have to admit that after reading through the "format.*" section of > > git-config(1), there is quite a bit that is configurable in it. So > > perhaps we do not need to be as careful about behavior changes as I > > thought. > > I am not sure how the first sentence (which I agree with; a random > user can have quite a different behaviour configured when the > command is run without any option) leads to the conclusion in the > second sentence. The user can break assumptions made by a tool that > reads format-patch output by tweaking his config but at least he > knows that he changed the configuration, i.e. the breakage can be > explained and attributed to his own action. The change in the > default is somewhat different. I half-agree. Config that causes unpredictable behavior can break somebody else's script that you are running. If you say "oh, I guess I shouldn't set that config" and move on with your life, then the config hasn't really hurt anybody. If you complain to the script author that their script is broken, and insist that they pass the --no-foo option, then the script writer does not care much whether it was a config option or a change of default. -Peff PS We also changed the default pager behavior for format-patch recently, though I can't actually think of any script regressions that would cause, since it only kicks in when output is going to the tty. -- 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