From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add the diff option --no-defaults Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20090417115414.GA29121@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090409084903.GA18947@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090410080155.GB32195@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090416083443.GA27399@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090416094154.GA30479@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v4owok0bh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Keith Cascio , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 17 13:56:21 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lumfl-0003lM-JO for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:55:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756679AbZDQLyW (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756247AbZDQLyW (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:22 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:56346 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753495AbZDQLyW (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 15349 invoked by uid 107); 17 Apr 2009 11:54:26 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:26 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:54:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v4owok0bh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 09:52:50AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Right now, I think we are safe. A few options like "--default" do take a > > separated string argument, but saying "--default --no-defaults" seems a > > little crazy to me (besides being confusing because they are talking > > about two totally unrelated defaults). > > Maybe you guys have already considered and discarded this as too hacky, > but isn't it the easiest to explain and code to declare --no-defaults is > acceptable only at the beginning? I discarded that as "too hacky". If I had to choose my poison between "insane string options don't work" and "option must inexplicably be at the front", I think I take the former. It is perhaps a more difficult rule to realize you are triggering, but it is much less likely to come up in practice. But I think all of this is just ending up in the same place that Keith and I arrived at much earlier in the thread: you _are_ choosing a poison, and his patch was meant to avoid that. The question is whether the added code complexity is worth it. -Peff