On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:56:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > ... The principle of "remove defaults from code, and > > put them into the automatically generated config file" makes sense to > > me. It gives users an easy place to look to understand and change such > > behavior. So even without the rest of the patches, I think this is an > > improvement. > > If the removal of defaults do not break expectations of users of an > existing repository, I'd agree. Is it the case, or the lack of default > that is supposed to be there now suddenly makes the tool do unexpected > things? I think in the case of patches 1 and 2 (but without the later patches) it becomes redundant. And of course, Paolo's idea is that it opens us up to changing the default later, in which case it will cease to be redundant. But I think even in the meantime that it gives the user a clue when looking in the config file about what can be tweaked. > > ... I > > assume people still with ancient .git/remotes files? Are those actually > > deprecated? > > No. > > Neither .git/branches. When you interact with hundreds of remote > repositories, one interesting branch per each, like akpm does, the format > of one-file-per-remote is far easier and simpler to work with. Then in that case, I think the warning is definitely bogus. -Peff -- 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
