From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D658DF71 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 15:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 3BNFZEfB2969398 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Dec 2023 15:35:15 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Jeff King'" , "'Junio C Hamano'" Cc: "'Josh Steadmon'" , References: <20231221084011.GB545870@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231221214550.GD1446091@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231223100229.GA2016274@coredump.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: <20231223100229.GA2016274@coredump.intra.peff.net> Subject: RE: [PATCH/RFC] sparse-checkout: take care of "--end-of-options" in set/add Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 10:38:48 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <08b801da35b6$22c6e0f0$6854a2d0$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIwADX3ewLDVAgiuHrjB4AMnmID8AGPqT0vAoi+uCsBXXooKwHkhHiOAfD/iRkA3kx+BQMQkyJ/r6GYnPA= Content-Language: en-ca On Saturday, December 23, 2023 5:02 AM, Peff wrote: >On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King writes: >> > Right, that is the "gotcha" I mentioned in my other email. Though >> > that is the way it has behaved historically, my argument is that >> > users are unreasonable to expect it to work: >> > >> > 1. It is not consistent with the rest of Git commands. >> > >> > 2. It is inconsistent with respect to existing options (and is an >> > accident waiting to happen when new options are added). >> > >> > So I'd consider it a bug-fix. >> >> So the counter-proposal here is just to drop KEEP_UNKNOWN_OPT and >> deliberately break them^W^W^Wrealign their expectations? > >Yes. :) But keep in mind we are un-breaking other people, like those = who >typo: > > git sparse-checkout --sikp-checks I don't see why=20 git sparse-checkout -- --sikp-checks would be the only way to get that typo into a garbage entry, to be = consistent with other commands. Without the --, --sikp-checks should = result in an error. >and don't see an error (instead, we make a garbage entry in the sparse = checkout >file). > >> I do not have much stake in sparse-checkout, so I am fine with that >> direction. But I suspect other folks on the list would have users of >> their own who would rather loudly complain to them if we broke them >> ;-) > >Likewise, I have never used sparse-checkout myself, and I don't care = _that_ much. >My interest is mostly in having various Git commands behave = consistently. This >whole discussion started because the centralized --end-of-options fix = interacted >badly with this unusual behavior. I use sparse-checkout every day and do depend on it working predictably = (although I would take a fix to see it work as above, with the -- path = separator), so personally, I care about this a whole lot -- in terms of = consistency.