On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> What if we make log.graph=true also require feature.experimental=true? > > > > No. feature.experimental is to give people an opt-in opportunity > > for features that we are considering to enable by default. > > > >> The log.graph option would really be a useful feature for people who > >> use Git exclusively from the CLI without any external tools. It seems > >> that the main challenge is how to give others time to adjust. > > Let me clarify the first point by stating it a bit differently. > > feature.experimental is all about this: > > We have an idea for this new feature. We made it useful, and > also made it not to regress the end-user experience for those > who do not need the new feature, to the best of our ability. > But there may be use cases we failed to consider while doing > so. So let's ask early adopters, who may use Git in contexts > that are very different from ours, to try testing it out in > their daily use, to see if there are unexpected glitches. > > You do not have to argue how the --graph feature may be useful for > character terminal users. We already know it is, otherwise we > wouldn't have added it in the first place. > > And arguing how --graph feature is useful does not help prove > anything, when at the issue is if it is a good idea to allow the > log.graph configuration variable to affect (unfortunate) scripts > people wrote around "git log", instead of using plumbing commands, > negatively. We already know it will hurt to force everybody to > update their script to explicitly pass --no-graph on the command > line. This series hasn't done any of the "not to regress to the > best of our ability" part. > > If there were an agreement on the general direction to _forbid_ use > of "git log" in scripts, which would require coordinated efforts to > help people migrate over time, e.g. > > - improve plumbing by adding features that people piled only on > "git log" without allowing plumbing users the same over time. > > - perhaps an automated way to convert scripts that use "git log" to > instead use "git log --no-graph" > > to help script writers migrate away from "git log", adding log.graph > configuration variable may become very a good idea. > > But without such effort starting at the same time and gaining > consensus (or already underway), just adding such a variable to > break existing scripts would not be a good idea worth asking the > early adopters to test. We already know it would break scripts. Okay. Thanks for the explanation! -Alex
