From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D336820A78 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751050AbdBAXy0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:54:26 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:33260 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbdBAXyZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:54:25 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f65.google.com with SMTP id 194so9867pgd.0 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:54:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=NzXsckgKz4NxUXbBH6/29O8bgZfAC0eHdrPwOGVsJjE=; b=r5RZX7E8O7RT46B/SKtltxqdJwRBdu39nqN3GE5q2W7AFEgoNkNfOot9Uc/mm7iY/4 LiVba1Y2A67Xsg7+Mhsap4XzCU9o0MpYWufbBMY1QIRzggBiSjS5XlsqCRYS/eY3ij9a uQ3QKNG9eab/OJfmX8zZrR1JkcmBjtK+/uHWwmCK6DbKBlrbRGHMbh3FbnHPzBcXvBje oEJvuRjhL6kslyh9iImwXviEeweUyAxvjKMrQLiin9rxmADGc39CCv56dsXLK+vTv+ap udF6t+7689I1mRHyFJ5sW+Cs+toHlR3KzlDhoppRcVwFeY+WGmN0qTdSp/5W+OMtKBwZ mMSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=NzXsckgKz4NxUXbBH6/29O8bgZfAC0eHdrPwOGVsJjE=; b=K6qdgIVheGtDtyldphevXWbxCAmsi9mQwjgqnRpZd5dTWBff/nMsQBZD9V2uWqDWfI OqqW2oKyJ2L452KA+t37jy0ymBNb/eqAXjsmO2GxU9xt84pQElelIk8vg8k4GKwundYk dsMT+R6AEdjY6kzmgAJqUtGGzmGOUqW5+QDZmW60t/bR4pcxC+7eAd063yRbSHaNXNmS jP92x7LTAsjZMDWF6FyDJJEc6ofyLwbIexDQjFKmb1PT91tPVNwj0zslal/KaRl7FgtO vCoWb1K5TlFFEMP3isz1hBgKfGXA39khSAlOGYf6My+YNenDZGJ9AaLNFUpg5NmQtIte GzKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKp7EhntgqzgMIeJPFF3uZ3rlejHGaR2YBezeHJHLhQApu0jxP6KWm23WR8MnO9QQ== X-Received: by 10.84.236.76 with SMTP id h12mr8160401pln.173.1485993264638; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:25a6:b4bd:905a:8303]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm53019920pgt.8.2017.02.01.15.54.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:54:24 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: cornelius.weig@tngtech.com, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: add note about ignoring --no-create-reflog References: <20170201220727.18070-1-cornelius.weig@tngtech.com> <20170201223520.b4er3av67ev5m3ls@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170201231939.hxhhujpzyb2cqq7a@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170201233202.p462dggidiiyx6s6@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:54:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20170201233202.p462dggidiiyx6s6@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 2 Feb 2017 00:32:03 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:27:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I had the same trouble wording. Another thing I noticed was that I >> deliberately left it vague what "default" this does not override, >> because it appears to me that those who do not set logallrefupdates >> will get the compiled-in default and that is also not overriden. >> >> IOW, "does not negate the setting of core.logallrefupdates" will >> open us to reports "I do not have the configuration set, but I still >> get reflog even when --no-create-reflog is given". >> >> The negated form `--no-create-reflog` currently does not negate >> the default; it overrides an earlier `--create-reflog`, though. >> >> perhaps? > > True. I thought the default was "off", and that we merely set the config > when initializing a repo. But looking again, it really is checking > is_bare_repository() at runtime. > > I still think it is OK to mention, as the description of > core.logallrefupdates is where we document the behavior and the > defaults. So even with "I do not have it set", that is still the key to > find more information. OK, let's take yours as the final and merge it down to 'next' soonish.