Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-22 Thread Miles Bader
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: * Introduce git add --ignore-removal option in the release after the current cycle (a new feature is too late for this cycle): Too late in the cycle even if the option is simply ignored ... ? [To extend the range of git versions where it's not an

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-22 Thread Junio C Hamano
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: * Introduce git add --ignore-removal option in the release after the current cycle (a new feature is too late for this cycle): Too late in the cycle even if the option is simply ignored ... ? [To extend the

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-18 Thread greened
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: * dg/subtree-fixes (2013-02-05) 6 commits (merged to 'next' on 2013-02-09 at 8f19ebe) + contrib/subtree: make the manual directory if needed + contrib/subtree: honor DESTDIR + contrib/subtree: fix synopsis + contrib/subtree: better error

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes: If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain, then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition will not hold. Does the impossibility of

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes: If that is the change we are going to make, and if you can guarantee that nobody who is used to the historical behaviour will complain, then I am fine with it, but I think the latter part of the condition

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes: On 13 February 2013 11:34, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: The change could negatively affect people who expect that removing files that are not used for their purpose (e.g. a large file that is unnecessary for their build) will _not_

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-13 Thread Andrew Ardill
On 14 February 2013 02:27, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: If we need to support this behaviour than I would suppose a config option is required. A default config transition path similar to git push defaults would probably work well, in the case where breaking these expectations is

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes: We've discussed that before. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/171811/focus=171818 Something that I couldn't find discussed was the option of, rather than providing a config to 'turn it off', inverting the current

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-13 Thread Andrew Ardill
On 14 February 2013 15:36, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: That is, currently git add defaults to not staging file deletions, and we provide command line flags to include them. The consensus in the thread is that it is better to stage them by default; it seems reasonable to me that if

What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with '-' are only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with '+' are in 'next'. A preview of the upcoming release 1.8.2-rc0 is expected to be tagged late this week. You can find the changes described here in the

jn/shell-disable-interactive (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12))

2013-02-12 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Junio C Hamano wrote: * jn/shell-disable-interactive (2013-02-11) 2 commits - shell: pay attention to exit status from 'help' command - shell doc: emphasize purpose and security model Will merge to 'next'. Please hold off on merging the second patch. I'd like to reroll renaming the

Re: jn/shell-disable-interactive (Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12))

2013-02-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: * jn/shell-disable-interactive (2013-02-11) 2 commits - shell: pay attention to exit status from 'help' command - shell doc: emphasize purpose and security model Will merge to 'next'. Please hold off on merging the

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-12 Thread Andrew Ardill
On 13 February 2013 11:06, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: * jc/add-delete-default (2012-08-13) 1 commit - git add: notice removal of tracked paths by default git add dir/ updated modified files and added new files, but does not notice removed files, which may be Huh? to some

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes: On 13 February 2013 11:06, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: * jc/add-delete-default (2012-08-13) 1 commit - git add: notice removal of tracked paths by default git add dir/ updated modified files and added new files, but does not

Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2013, #05; Tue, 12)

2013-02-12 Thread Andrew Ardill
On 13 February 2013 11:34, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: The change could negatively affect people who expect that removing files that are not used for their purpose (e.g. a large file that is unnecessary for their build) will _not_ affect what they get from git add .; How big a