Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
It would have been a better split to have the 1/2 patch to support both
informative and uninformative errors, with the default to say "access
denied", and 2/2 to flip the default to be more open.
Isn't that what I did? It was what I meant to do, anyway...
Or did you mean the options would have been better worded as:
--errors={terse,informative}
or something similar?
Nothing that elaborate.
Supporting --no-* variant even when the default is already no will allow
people to prepare their daemon invocation command line beforehand to ensure
that they won't be affected to a more lenient default that may or may not
come in the future. That's all.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 01:48:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
It would have been a better split to have the 1/2 patch to support both
informative and uninformative errors, with the default to say "access
denied", and 2/2 to flip the default to be more open.
Isn't that what I did? It was what I meant to do, anyway...
Or did you mean the options would have been better worded as:
--errors={terse,informative}
or something similar?
Nothing that elaborate.
Supporting --no-* variant even when the default is already no will allow
people to prepare their daemon invocation command line beforehand to ensure
that they won't be affected to a more lenient default that may or may not
come in the future. That's all.
Oh. Then look again at 1/2. It supports both forms; I just didn't bother
advertising the --no form in the manpage, since it was the default.
-Peff
Jeff King wrote:
Oh. Then look again at 1/2. It supports both forms; I just didn't bother
advertising the --no form in the manpage, since it was the default.
Yes, and that was the bug Junio mentioned. If we are considering 2/2
then admins will need to know about the --no form before we roll out
the change in default. :)