Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't *think* you intend to say "sure, you got user reports, but > (those users are wrong | those users are not real | you are not > interpreting those users correctly)", but that is what I am hearing. What I have been saying is "we are sending a wrong message to those users by not clearly saying 'optional' (i.e. it is OK for your Git not to understand this optional bits of information---you do not have to get alarmed immediately) and also not hinting where that optional thing comes from (i.e. if users realized they come from the future, the coalmine canary message will serve its purpose of reminding them that a newer Git is not just available but has been used already in their repository and help them to rectify the situation sooner)". As the deployed versions of Git will keep sending the wrong message, I do not mind applying 1/5 and 2/5, given especially that Ben seems to be OK with the plan. I however do not think 3 thru 5 is ready yet with this round---there were some discussions on phrasing in this thread.
