Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Sanitize sideband channel messages
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2026-02-13 23:50:54
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:quoted
* 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?