Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > which is planned for the next release. I guess it is indeed a > worthwhile accident-prevention measure BUT not sure if it is so > important as to cause a change in behavior on which some projects using > git through the cmdline interface might have been relying upon for > years!
Not only through the command line interface. The git-annex webapp has common use cases that will be broken by this change. > Moreover, it was explicitly stated that "no configuration variable to > enable this by default exists and will not be added", which would cause > 3rd party scripts/code/projects relying on previous behavior to provide > version specific handling (either to add that > --allow-unrelated-histories or not)... very cumbersome! Agreed, a configuration setting that could be passed via -c would be much less cumbersome than checking the version of git in order to only pass the option to git versions that understand it. This would also provide a way to get git pull to allow such merges. Compare with, for example, the change to default to an interactive merge, where GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT=no was provided to ease compatability. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
