From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Buchacher Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsck: do not print dangling objects by default Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:13:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20120227211316.GA29081@ecki> References: <20120226204357.GA26088@ecki> <7vty2ddzqj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vhayddxgp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120227191846.GB1600@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vr4xg6pn2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 27 22:21:59 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S280z-00074Y-Bl for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:21:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755241Ab2B0VVn (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:21:43 -0500 Received: from bsmtp4.bon.at ([195.3.86.186]:31277 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754565Ab2B0VVl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:21:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (p5B22E80B.dip.t-dialin.net [91.34.232.11]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C610A7EB9; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:22:26 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr4xg6pn2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:29:53AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > >> Given that, isn't it not just sufficient but actually better to instead > >> add a new --no-dangling option and keep the default unchanged? > > > > ... Of course, it is fsck, so I wonder how often clueless people are > > really running it in the first place (i.e., it is not and should not be > > part of most users' typical workflows). If it is simply the case that > > they are being told to run "git fsck" by more expert users without > > understanding what it does, then I could buy the argument that those > > expert users could just as easily say "git fsck --no-dangling". > > Yes, that was certainly part of my pros-and-cons analysis. If you run > "git fsck" without "--no-dangling" without reading the manual, you may > get confused, but that is *not* the primary audience. It is not my only concern that users might be confused. I believe the command prints a lot of useless messages, which is by itself a UI deficiency. But even worse, those numerous messages tend to hide an actual problem in a long scrollback buffer. Sometimes my scrollback buffer is not even large enough and I have to re-run fsck (which is not exactly a fast command), just so I can grep out the dangling blobs. > People who are curious can read the manual and figure it out, and the > need for "fsck" is much rarer these days, compared to 2005 ;-) In my opinion, the need for fsck is much more common these days. With the alternates feature, it happens all the time that a repository breaks if one is not extremely careful. > In that context, only large downsides of potentially breaking and having > to adjust existing scripts remains without much upsides, if we were to > switch the default. There is something wrong with weighting a UI improvement against convenient use in scripts. If that were the issue, then we should add a plumbing version for all commands, like we do for git status --porcelain. Otherwise we can never change anything any more.