git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).