Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration
- From
- Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net>
- Date
- Oct 15, 2013, 22:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20131015220125.GA14021@shrek.podlesie.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <525d8ebd19c67_5feab61e8037@nysa.notmuch>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:51:41PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > I don't see what is the problem. We haven't had the need for push.default = > simplewarning, have we? If you want the warning, you don't change anything, if
simplewarning makes no sense, because push.default=simple sets exact behavior, not some "next" behavior that may change in future.
For instance, I was very unhappy once, when git pull failed and said that I should do git pull --merge.
Show 7 quoted lines
> you want to specify something, you already know what you are doing. > > > Maybe we should also add core.mode=next-warn that changes defaults like next > > but keeps warnings enabled until the user accepts that change by setting > > appropriate config option? > > Maybe, but would you actually use that option?
No.
Show 15 quoted lines
> > > That's safer than next (at least for interactive use) and maybe more users > > would use that, but I don't think that's worth adding. > > Maybe, but I don't think many users would use either mode, and that's good. > > > For me, old behavior by default and warnings with information how to > > enable new incompatible features, is sufficient. So I don't need > > core.mode option, but as long it will be useful for other users I have > > nothing against it. > > OK, but that seems to mean you don't need core.mode = next-warn either. I'm not > against adding such a mode, but I would like to hear about _somebody_ that > would like to actually use it. I don't like to program for ghosts. >
As I said earlier, I don't think that next-warn it's worth adding, but such option might increase the number of people interested in the core.mode.
Krzysiek