Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that >>> specifying that this is the default or not is really useful. If the >>> configuration was set to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no >>> message will appear. >> >> I'm not sure either, and as it's not the topic of this particular patch, >> I'd like to delegate the decision on the issue. > > It is very much spot on the topic of simplifying and clarifying the > code to unify these remaining two messages into a single one. I'm inclined to be more against merging than for it, as for me it'd be confusing to be told that a configuration variable is set to true when I didn't set it, nor there is any way to figure where it is set, because in fact it isn't, and it's rather the default that is in use. Overall, to me the messages are fine as they are (except -n that doesn't belong there), I don't see compelling reason to hide information from the user, and thus I won't propose patch that gets rid of one of them. > And involving the --interactive that allows users a chance to > rethink and refrain from removing some to the equation would also be > worth doing in the same topic, Worth doing what? I'm afraid I lost the plot here, as --interactive still looks fine to me. > even though it might not fit your immediate agenda of crusade against > --dry-run. I'm hopefully crusading for --dry-run, not against, trying to get rid of the cause of the original confusion that started -n/-f controversy. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
