From: Felipe Contreras Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:31:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add core.mode configuration Message-ID: <525ee9872ab50_3983c19e7c27@nysa.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <20131016070900.GC24964@shrek.podlesie.net> Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:55:07PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > John Szakmeister wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > If we add core.addremove=true the same applies to it - we cannot remove > it later, the only we can do is to disable it by default in future > versions after testing (core.addremove=true or core.mode=next). That is true, but adding core.addremove = true would probably imply there's the option of adding core.addremove = false. > > > 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. > > BTW, I'm still using pre-1.6 git-foo, I have /usr/libexec/git-core > in my PATH. So I would like to always have an option to disable some > new incompatible "improvements". That's what core.addremove = false would do, wouldn't it? > > So I say we shouldn't just provide warnings, but also have an option to allow > > users (probably a minority) to start testing this. > > > > and an option to keep the old behavior, like we did with push.default. Ditto. -- Felipe Contreras