Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2013, 03:55 UTC
Message-ID: <525e0e1b28c87_81a151de743f@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <CAEBDL5V8wfbQTZ5do-UMRpSsxRN8bFaHVnG7kRNfP0t+oYbfNg@mail.gmail.com>

John Szakmeister wrote:

Show 37 quoted lines

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@podlesie.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:56AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:32:39AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > > Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But with core.mode = next after upgrade you may experience incompatible
> >> > > > change without any warning.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, and that is actually what the user wants. I mean, why would the user set
> >> > > core.mode=next, if the user doesn't want to experencie incompatible changes? A
> >> > > user that sets this mode is expecting incompatible changes, and will be willing
> >> > > to test them, and report back if there's any problem with them.
> >> >
> >> > With your patch, because it's the only way to have 'git add' v2.0.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I suggested to have *both* a
> >> fined-tunned way to have this behavior, say core.addremove = true, and a way to
> >> enable *all* v2.0 behaviors (core.mode = next).
> >
> > I'm just not sure if a lot of users would use core.mode=next, because
> > of possible different behavior without any warning. 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? 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.
> 
> I like the idea that we could kick git into a mode that applies the
> behaviors we're talking about having in 2.0, but I'm concerned about
> one aspect of it.  Not having these behaviors until 2.0 hits means
> we're free to renege on our decisions in favor of something better, or
> to pull out a bad idea.  But once we insert this knob, I don't know
> that we have the same ability.  Once people realize it's there and
> start using it, it gets harder to back out.  I guess we could maintain
> the stance that "the features are not concrete yet," or something like
> that, but I think people would still get upset if something changes
> out from under them.

We cannot change the behavior of push.default = simple already, so at least that option is not in question.

Presumably you are worried about the other options that can't be enabled in any way.

But think about this; you are worried that if we add an *option* to enable this new behaviors, then we would be kind of forced to keep these behaviors. That seems to imply that you are proposing the current default; we wait until 2.0 and not make it an *option*, but make it *default*.

I think waiting until 2.0 to make it a default without evern having an option, and thus nobody actuallly testing this, is way worst than what I'm proposing; to add an option to start testing.

> So, at the end of the day, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile to have.

This is exactly what happened on 1.6; nobody really tested the 'git foo' behavior, so we just switched from one version to the next. If you are not familiar with the outcome; it wasn't good.

So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow users (probably a minority) to start testing this.

-- 
Felipe Contreras