Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@xxxxxxx> writes: >>>> I think it is reasonable to require cloning with the >>>> least-common-denominator version in this case. Think of what >>>> happened if the pack format changed. >>> Any news on this (and on 1/7, which is in pu)? >> >> The pack-format change is a big deal and benefit everybody. Comparing it >> with this change feels like comparing an apple and a poppy seed, doesn't >> it? > > Yes, but it is the same. Another example is when remotes started > being created in refs/remotes/origin upon cloning. In general, you > cannot expect a clone to be downwards-compatible (or, you should > expect a clone *not* to be downwards-compatible). I think we are in agreement and that is all the more reason we have to be extremely careful not to introduce incompatibility without a clear advantage. The commands involved with your patch work with or without the new default entry in the config created by the clone exactly the same way, and the versions before your patch would choke with the new default entry. -- 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
