From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C0C1F55B for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 14:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728563AbgE1Oow (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53986 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725922AbgE1Oov (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AAF569D8; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=o29izf9+9Be2vAINHSeDtIN43J0=; b=OSM604 H6IJCMGxSK9Tiuq2MrDGQ4ffG8x+M9eJY0DQGB6x+Omhx3lU/omMLt9RfSPHEOQT sF8YSf5oV1HIBlaEkuiADP9mFaINEpEtIBsWqoPw36RhQSZpA4y0syAFjz2oEau2 oSgNfUZ20BeAJva49z+9XSpQSgeY0O7kL8D28= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fjjIUD5IOCHIdW2uhfQEwhYKEQm7Py/0 AbDBn2VPwrkM/daUDoouYbwCpRXziDvo2MOMMTZc+542NGTWymrGPozRu5z+u1wO hRIMQ+oKmR3uB02MWyMhe9MJYqBMYgweDOfO650JdvoaCDYltNr5694zbMvI6Cen l2uW2ubadz4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78288569D6; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E79D6569D5; Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: jn/experimental-opts-into-proto-v2, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2020, #09; Tue, 26) References: <20200527235808.GD56118@google.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 07:44:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 27 May 2020 22:05:28 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C7E81066-A0F1-11EA-8290-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> No. I fully accept your reasoning in the proposed log message why a >> handcrafted query to the config system is done in the location the >> patch adds a call. > > Now, I apologize. I had not reviewed the patch, and only just read it. > > I agree that it is a bit unfortunate that it uses such a non-standard way > that hard-codes "feature.experimental" in a different place than > repo-settings.c. You make it sound like it was a choice made by the implementation, but (1) a "non-standard" way may not have to stay non-standard forever (there may be many more experimental features that are not tied to a specific repository in the future), and (2) the patch needs to do it in a way that is not tied to a single repository because it is not at per-repository level decision. As long as we are aware of this limitation caused by the current "experimental" arrangement that is tied to a repository and can work towards extending it to support this new use case in the future, I do not think it is unfortunate at all. > Had it been a patch to repo-settings.c, I would now have tried to lobby > for including it into v2.27.0, but as it is, I fully agree with your > reasoning to just leave it out. No need to apologize for raising it as an issue---hearing from those with different risk tolerance from time to time is a good way to calibrate my own. Thanks.