Re: Triangular workflow

> Le 14 janv. 2026 à 16:11, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> a écrit :
> 
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:54:53AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>>> And having the extra output from "git checkout" is just extra noise for
>>> me, especially because it is easy to see only the second message (which
>>> looks just like the upstream ahead/behind message, of course) and get
>>> confused. The first time I saw it I thought I had misconfigured
>>> something with my branch.
>> It now is clear to me that this should be _optional_, so that those
>> who do really want extra output from the command should explicitly
>> opt into the feature.  After all, any optional new feature that you
>> must opt into by definition cannot regress end user experience for
>> those who do not ;-)
> 
> True, but then it also cannot pleasantly surprise people who didn't
> realize they wanted it.
> 
> Having your user experience regressed and then tweaking a config option
> to fix it is not too bad. The deciding factor to me is whether more
> people will be pleasantly surprised or annoyed. ;) I don't have a strong
> sense there.
> 
> As a general principle, though, I think a reasonable path forward for
> any behavior change is:
> 
> 1. Implement the new behavior, hidden behind a config option.
> 
> 2. Wait a while to see how people like the new option, and shake out
>   any bugs.
> 
> 3. If people like the option and are puzzled why it isn't the default,
>   then flip the default on.
> 
> In other words, let the utility of the feature be proven in practice by
> people opting into it. There is a chicken-and-egg problem if they don't
> know about it, but if it is truly solving a problem people have, then
> hopefully some of them would look for a solution and find it.
> 
> End philosophical rambling. ;)