From: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@MIT.EDU>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-push: Accept -n as a synonym for --dry-run.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:40:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090913034031.GO4275@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vfxar5zsi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 07:44:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sign-off?
Signed-off-by: Nelson Elhage <nelhage@mit.edu>
(I can resend the entire patch, but I'll resend with a new commit
message if appropriate after any discussion plays itself out).
>
> Indeed -n is used in many places for --dry-run, but it is not _the_
> standard way.
>
> commit, push (as you identified), reflog, and send-email have --dry-run
> but -n is not a synonym for it. Some of them even use -n as a shorthand
> for a more often used option than --dry-run.
Can you point to an example of a git command supporting --dry-run, and
using -n for something else? I personally would find that confusing,
since -n is a common alias for dry-run both inside and outside of git
(c.f. make, rsync, libtool). I guess patch(1) has that property, but
none of your examples from git use -n to mean something else.
In fact, reflog already supports '-n' to mean dry-run, it's just not
documented. I'll send along a documentation patch to fix that.
I got the claim that -n was "standard" from parse-options.h, which
defines OPT__DRY_RUN, which defines both -n and --dry-run switches at
the same time. Given the number of commands that treat them as
synonymous, I think it would be a win for UI consistency to make them
synonymous everywhere.
>
> So the justification should be more like "push does not any other option
> that deserves a short-and-sweet -n better, it will not have any such
> option in the future, and --dry-run is very often used that it deserves to
> use -n as its short-hand."
>
> I tend to agree with the first two points, but I am not sure about the
> third point. Do people dry-push that often?
I personally use --dry-run almost every time I push, which is what
inspired this patch. Especially now that the push.default can change
the behavior of push from repo to repo, I want to be sure I know what
I'm about to push. The recent 'git push --confirm' thread suggests I
am not the only person with this concern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-13 3:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-13 0:05 [PATCH] git-push: Accept -n as a synonym for --dry-run Nelson Elhage
2009-09-13 2:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-13 3:40 ` Nelson Elhage [this message]
2009-09-13 3:54 ` Nelson Elhage
2009-09-13 5:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-13 6:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-09-13 17:07 ` Nelson Elhage
2009-09-13 5:18 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090913034031.GO4275@mit.edu \
--to=nelhage@mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.