From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-blame.txt: --follow is a NO-OP Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:37:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20120919203738.GA24383@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120906151317.GB7407@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1348022905-10048-1-git-send-email-n1xim.email@gmail.com> <7v627aiq47.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120919182715.GF11699@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vzk4lg5yf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120919194213.GB21950@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Drew Northup , gitList , Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr, andy@aeruder.net, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, dmellor@whistlingcat.com, dpmcgee@gmail.com, fonseca@diku.dk, freku045@student.liu.se, marius@trolltech.com, namhyung@gmail.com, rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx, s-beyer@gmx.net, trast@inf.ethz.ch To: Kevin Ballard X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 19 22:37:52 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 1TER1r-00060V-0Y for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:37:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751773Ab2ISUhl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:37:41 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:50014 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751584Ab2ISUhk (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:37:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 5925 invoked by uid 107); 19 Sep 2012 20:38:05 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:38:05 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:37:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 01:31:50PM -0700, Kevin Ballard wrote: > > I am a little lukewarm on my patch if only because of the precedent it > > sets. There are a trillion options that revision.c parses that are not > > necessarily meaningful or implemented for sub-commands that piggy-back > > on its option parser. I'm not sure we want to get into manually > > detecting and disallowing each one in every caller. > > I tend to agree with your final sentiment there. But the point that > users may not realize that blame already follows is also valid. Perhaps > we should catch --follow, as in your patch, but instead of saying that > it's an unknown argument, just print out a helpful message saying blame > already follows renames (and then continue with the blame anyway, so > as to not set a precedent to abort on unknown-but-currently-accepted > flags). Sure, that would probably make sense. Care to roll a patch with suggested wording? -Peff