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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 C07C3202A2 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753618AbdJQBGc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:06:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:63843 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752214AbdJQBGb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:06:31 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FBCB61D3; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:06:30 -0400 (EDT) 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=Dl4yNXFEDJpjb6FBKc3gqQ7nv4U=; b=fBRdtx T2D1Q7dpdJsc0CPkpX1oODcMHHyGMsIcpTyxlQPnLUvWAtVSuMbiKdI10iWdgs7O BVhiRvjtMwWuqoBImezqiV4LPwG9izIVRi4RXkhQVrgILgdTUdzhW1yHwMC7qdae 4l9GFDt3nqMc5NwJsGEPYPmqZQOqbz1bYdXA0= 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=AVR9+S7TqBoj9pdfbQEdCvKbUGh8UZ13 gNLXlpX/0WTdRUTUbe55fg6HqmsHRMg6GqD+UN2ArgMtFNV64YbNAcAvB2tWvNNQ G+RGGab3khl/3WmRdogcabbE9TXKHoQA4dz/yorCbGcfwkODQicSDpxLLf0P/HXo CwjAo2J/Rho= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFB5B61D1; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DEE6B61D0; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:06:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] color: downgrade "always" to "auto" only for on-disk configuration References: <20171012021007.7441-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20171012021007.7441-2-gitster@pobox.com> <20171012123153.i265nun6pklw7kjg@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171013014721.d4vesqv4v5j7tmk2@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171013130638.dgc6kawy5mvrbasz@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171016215311.m72jarmqhjagy6o6@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:06:29 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171016215311.m72jarmqhjagy6o6@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:53:11 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 68C20318-B2D7-11E7-A5D8-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:01:46PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > That takes us back to the pre-regression state. The ancient bug from >> > 4c7f1819 still exists, but that would be OK for v2.15. We'd probably >> > want to bump the -rc cycle a bit to give more confidence that (2) caught >> > everything. >> >> Yes, I think that is the approach I was pushing initially with the >> jc/ref-filter-colors-fix topic that was later retracted; the result >> of your 4-patch series more or less matches that one, modulo that I >> didn't treat for-each-ref as a plumbing. > > Ah, right, I forgot about that one while I was putting it together. So > many alternatives floating around. > >> I do share the worry that >> it is hard to make sure that these post-revert adjustment caught >> everything; after all, that was a major part of the reason why my >> earlier attempt was retracted. I still think this is the _right_ >> direction to go in, even though it is harder to get right. > > To be honest, I'm not actually very worried. I think missing a > post-revert adjustment is the main risk, but my general sense is that > there hasn't been a lot going on with color fixes outside of my recent > work. Famous last words and all that, I'm sure. :) > >> True. Let's see what others think. I know Jonathan is running >> the fork at $work with "downgrade always to auto" patches, and while >> I think both approaches would probably work well in practice, I have >> preference for this "harder but right" approach, so I'd want to see >> different views discussed on the list before we decide. > > After pondering over it, I have a slight preference for that, too. But > I'm also happy to hear more input. OK, so it seems we both have slight preference for the "peel back" approach. Adding Jonathan to Cc: