From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 05/11] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:17:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20150527201748.GC14309@peff.net> References: <1432677675-5118-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <1432677675-5118-6-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <20150527063925.GC885@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" , Duy Nguyen , Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 27 22:17:56 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxhlz-0004cT-T6 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 22:17:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751320AbbE0URv (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2015 16:17:51 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:36833 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750868AbbE0URv (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2015 16:17:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 11492 invoked by uid 102); 27 May 2015 20:17:51 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 15:17:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 10113 invoked by uid 107); 27 May 2015 20:17:55 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 16:17:55 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 May 2015 16:17:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:01:50PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > Interesting choice for the short option ("-v" would be nice, but > > obviously it is taken). Do we want to delay on claiming the > > short-and-sweet 'y' until we are sure this is something people will use > > a lot? In an ideal world, it is not (i.e., auto-upgrade and other tricks > > become good enough that nobody bothers to specify it manually). > [...] > Or do you rather hint on dropping the short option at all, and just having NULL > in the field? Yes, that's what I was hinting. -Peff