From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:25:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] reset: do not accept a mixed reset in a .git dir
Message-ID: <7vk4woyogb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vskbcyot5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

>> The reason is that after the next patch, it will not fail in a bare 
>> repository,...
>
> That sounds as if you want to change the definition of what the expected
> behaviour is early, because you want to claim a regression you will later
> introduce is not a regression.  I hope that is not the case.

Hmm...

By "after the next patch, it will not fail in a bare repository",
did you mean "if the next patch blindly replaced an external call to
read-tree with an internal call to unpack_trees(), it will change the
behaviour, and we will end up allowing '--mixed in bare'.  To prevent it
from happening, cmd_reset() should check that condition upfront"?

Then you were not trying to hide regressions (which makes me happier).
But then doesn't the change belong to the next patch, not this one?