From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 20:17:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 05/11] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number
Message-ID: <20150527201748.GC14309@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZosnaNv-FccG2pni2JkQdJ-QNtfHz82U+4FyYKrVACqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:01:50PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:

> > Interesting choice for the short option ("-v" would be nice, but
> > obviously it is taken). Do we want to delay on claiming the
> > short-and-sweet 'y' until we are sure this is something people will use
> > a lot? In an ideal world, it is not (i.e., auto-upgrade and other tricks
> > become good enough that nobody bothers to specify it manually).
> [...]
> Or do you rather hint on dropping the short option at all, and just having NULL
> in the field?

Yes, that's what I was hinting.

-Peff