onathan Nieder wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I am still puzzled by the insistence of 3/5 and this step that wants >> to kill the coalmine canary. But I am even more puzzled by the >> first two steps that want to disable the two optional extensions. [...] > I acknowledge your puzzlement. I'm not sure what to do about it. > > There are a few significant differences from the REUC case: > > 1. This happens whenever the index is refreshed. REUC, as you > mentioned, only affected resolutions of conflicted merges. So > users ran into it less often. > > 2. I never ran into the REUC case. If I had, I would have sent the > same patch then. > > 3. Time has passed and people's standards may have gone up. > > I wish I had been around when the message was added in the first > place, so that I could have provided the same feedback about the > message then. But I do not think that that should be held against me. > I'm describing a real user problem. And to be clear, it is the first two patches that address the immediate user problem. Whatever improvements we make to the warning message today, we cannot retroactively change the other versions of Git that users are using that want to access the same repository. Jonathan
