On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:56 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On v2 you said, "There are a few things that I found questionable, but > > they were mostly documentation issues". You brought up several points > > in v2 where my wording in the Documentation was admittedly suboptimal, > > though I think I addressed all of those in v3. > > Correct. The above is all assuming that "cone is the future" is > what is shared by the population that depends on sparse-checkout. I > do not have strong opinions to declare that, but to help the topic > move forward, I was giving reviews under the condition, i.e. "If > there is such a concensus, here are the things in your current > iteration that would need to be addressed". Thanks for the clarification. > I vaguely recall there were folks who didn't like the change of > default the last time you brought this topic up. Convincing them is > not my job---it is yours. Mine has been to help prepare the code > ready for public consumption when that happens. That's a surprise to me; I don't remember anyone bringing that up, ever. Did I somehow miss it?? I'd be happy to talk to anyone and hear their concerns if they do hold such an opinion. Over the last year or so both Stolee and Victoria have suggested such a change or said they wondered why I didn't include such a change with other sparse-checkout changes we were making, and I mentioned a few times I thought it'd be a good future plan and finally submitted it. To the best of my memory, no one ever offered a counter opinion. Are you perhaps mixing this up with the case where people brought up concerns with suggested tab-completion changes? That's the only other related series recently where folks brought up concerns with suggested changes.
