From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 23:50:50 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Sanitize sideband channel messages Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> * I would have preferred to see the early parts of the series all >> being opt-in, and that subset of the series be able to graduate >> earlier. Way earlier than the default flip to prove that they do >> not hurt when unconfigured (they are theoretically no-op while >> being opt-in, but we want to make sure), and that they do help >> when configured. And then once we are satisfied, the default >> flip can be discussed and applied. > > Thinking about this a bit more, I see a strong reason to prefer the > way the series in this iteration is constructed. We could merge the > early parts down to 'next' well before the last piece, and hopefully > we will know how much what they are already using breaks (and we > know colors are use in the field, and we know by default we pass > colors, so this is to catch other uses of control sequences) by > filtering among those who are running 'next' for their every-day > work, before the main part of the series leaves 'master'. > > If we did it the other way around, even if we mergee everything to > 'next', the guinea-pig population will be limited to those who build > 'next' with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES, which would be a lot smaller > minority (I suspect that nobody uses a build with > WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES for their every-day work, actually). > > So I no longer think the "no-op by default first and then tighten at > the end with WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES" is my preference. The other two points I still care about. Others have any opinion on the topic?