Re: Please discuss: what "git push" should do when you do not say what to push?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Mar 19, 2012, 21:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v62e09sig.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4F6792DE.80208@pileofstuff.org>
Andrew Sayers <andrew-git@pileofstuff.org> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On 18/03/12 18:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> ... but in short, it is not a problem we can solve >> (nor we should be solving), as long as we have a reasonable migration plan >> and if the user is locked out of that migration plan---whoever is doing >> the locking-out is taking responsibility for these users who are out of >> our reach. > > I take the point that distros have their own support infrastructure, so > perhaps this would be a better example: > > Many administrators in corporate environments will install git from > source, because they don't trust RPM/need some feature in the latest > version/are just that way inclined. Having installed it, they tend to > sit on that version for a few years ...
The same response applies. These administrators are taking responsibility for their users by making them out of our reach.
Show 7 quoted lines
> ... a > slightly better solution: > > When a user upgrades to a mid- or post-change version of git, I think > it's a good idea for them to be warned about the change of behaviour. > But new users, and old users with new repositories, gain nothing from > the little history lesson.
You are right for new users, but are wrong for old users who aren't aware of the switch-over, *and* are harmed by the switch-over.