Paolo Bonzini, Tue, Apr 29, 2008 09:57:57 +0200:
>> Failing that, would you get slightly annoyed, or perhaps even quite
>> vexed if you find out that insert-program-used-to-do-some-work-with-here
>> did omething stupid that made you lose some of your work?
>
> Sorry, how does the patch make you lose some of your work (as opposed to
> some of your time, which is possible as is the case for every backwards
> incompatible change)?
>
> 1) what about the reflog?
It could not be enabled in repos before May 2006 (as the feature did
not exist back than).
> 2) the patch does not touch refs/heads/* unless you are tweaking your
> configuration (and quite heavily so). IMHO that's using enough rope
> that you really ought to know about the reflog and... look for backwards
> incompatible changes in the release notes!
Since when do you depend on people reading release notes and
immediately and correctly changing their behaviour?
> 3) your complaint was that it gave errors. Alex did talk about losing
> his work, but questions 1 and 2 would apply to him too.
Yes. And I can loose my work if "git fetch" (which I type without
thinking) will now update some remote I didn't mean it to.
Remote references can be shared - updated from different sites (think
mirros like kernel.org and repo.or.cz). Setups like this are used
elsewhere too (I use them).
> 4) one man's stupidity is another man's... [fill in] In particular, did
> you understand the rationale for this change? Do you have any
> alternative ideas?
Do you have a convincing one by now? And an acceptable transition plan?
("Read RelNotes!", yes, you mentioned. Another one?)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
