Paolo Bonzini, Tue, Apr 29, 2008 23:15:02 +0200: >>> 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? > > I don't, that's why I never expected all patches to go in 1.5.6. > Oh, the next minor release... > I sent them together to provide a single coherent series and an aim for > a transition plan -- which I'd prefer to work out with the git > community, who knows the release mechanics much better than I do. Jeff > King's reply to the cover letter is a start towards that; your e-mails Hmm... Which one do you mean? I cannot find his reply to message-id <cover.1209391614.git.bonzini@xxxxxxx> > are also a start towards that, even though I don't think your transition > plan is feasible (also because it would break "git remote update" > completely). Which part of "warn people in git-fetch" will break "git remote update"? Or what will break after the "git remote add" start setting skipDefaultUpdate? >>> 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? > > See the (long) cover letter. > It is not. It seem to propose, instead of fixing existing behaviour, change it incompatibly. And dangerously, I believe. -- 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
