Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2021 20:20 +00:00: > 1. I agree with softening this to be a warning rather than a hard error > in a patch release, and then a hard error in 1.15. I hadn't thought of > doing a preprocessor-based time-bomb; good idea. I will retract my > backport until I have done that.
Sounds good to me. > (If you would like a specific answer to any of your specific points, > would you kindly ask it/them again. Just picking up on one specific > question, "how would a warning be more of a hindrance than a hard > error?": I was thinking of two things. One: without seeing a warning > at the top the first thing the user might see could be the scroll-by > stopping at conflicts, and the user might then waste a lot of time > resolving them. Two: having to revert a merge is in some cases > non-trivial, if we not making assumptions about best practices and > clean simple scenarios.) *nod* Cheers, Daniel
