Re: [PATCH 5/5] index: offer advice for unknown index extensions

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2018, 05:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20181121050458.GD245855@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq36rv81nr.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

>> I don't *think* you intend to say "sure, you got user reports, but
>> (those users are wrong | those users are not real | you are not
>> interpreting those users correctly)", but that is what I am hearing.
>
> What I have been saying is "we are sending a wrong message to those
> users by not clearly saying 'optional' (i.e. it is OK for your Git
> not to understand this optional bits of information---you do not
> have to get alarmed immediately) and also not hinting where that
> optional thing comes from (i.e. if users realized they come from the
> future, the coalmine canary message will serve its purpose of
> reminding them that a newer Git is not just available but has been
> used already in their repository and help them to rectify the
> situation sooner)".
>
> As the deployed versions of Git will keep sending the wrong message,
> I do not mind applying 1/5 and 2/5, given especially that Ben seems
> to be OK with the plan.  I however do not think 3 thru 5 is ready
> yet with this round---there were some discussions on phrasing in
> this thread.

Thanks much --- that helps a lot.

Would you mind taking patch 4/5 as well? (It's a tweak to the configuration introduced in patches 1 and 2 that addresses a concern Ben Peart had.)

As for patches 3 and 5, I agree. In particular, patch 5 needs an s/performance//, and it seems that the commit messages need some work as well.

Sorry for getting the conversation in the wrong direction, and I'm glad to hear we have a good way forward.

Sincerely, Jonathan