Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > But that's not what I was referring to here. > >> I do not know if others on the list agree, though. > > This is what I was referring to. Initially there seemed to be some > interest, and suddenly that interest disappeared. Perhaps most of them are happy enough with the current behaviour. Perhaps nobody cares strongly enough to say what they want to see, as they fear that by speaking up they would be drawn into a discussion that is needlessly hot and unpleasant. >> I do agree that there is no agreement on the behaviour in the >> endgame. > > See? I disagree. > > I think the endgame is clear. How we get there is where there's no agreement. What you want as the endgame may be clear to you. But I do not think there is clear concensus among people on the list. >> In principle, I am in favor of disabling the more >> dangerous half of the "git pull" command for those who haven't >> configured anything. But I can understand those who do not want >> that behaviour, as the fallout would be quite big. > > And who is that? Did anyone in the list express that they did not want > that behavior? I thought that you at least saw Dscho's reaction to the breakage caused by "future" patch in response to one of the recent What's cooking reports. Doesn't that count "anyone on the list express"? I am starting to feel myself that "don't do anything if this is not a fast-forward" may be something that would have been great if we had it from day one but is no longer a feasible default with existing users, to be quite honest, so you can count my 20% as another example.
