From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF9818F4E for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 10:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 18694 invoked by uid 109); 23 Dec 2023 10:02:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 10:02:33 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 11408 invoked by uid 111); 23 Dec 2023 10:02:30 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 23 Dec 2023 05:02:30 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 05:02:29 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Josh Steadmon , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sparse-checkout: take care of "--end-of-options" in set/add Message-ID: <20231223100229.GA2016274@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20231221084011.GB545870@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20231221214550.GD1446091@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Right, that is the "gotcha" I mentioned in my other email. Though that > > is the way it has behaved historically, my argument is that users are > > unreasonable to expect it to work: > > > > 1. It is not consistent with the rest of Git commands. > > > > 2. It is inconsistent with respect to existing options (and is an > > accident waiting to happen when new options are added). > > > > So I'd consider it a bug-fix. > > So the counter-proposal here is just to drop KEEP_UNKNOWN_OPT and > deliberately break them^W^W^Wrealign their expectations? Yes. :) But keep in mind we are un-breaking other people, like those who typo: git sparse-checkout --sikp-checks and don't see an error (instead, we make a garbage entry in the sparse checkout file). > I do not have much stake in sparse-checkout, so I am fine with that > direction. But I suspect other folks on the list would have users > of their own who would rather loudly complain to them if we broke > them ;-) Likewise, I have never used sparse-checkout myself, and I don't care _that_ much. My interest is mostly in having various Git commands behave consistently. This whole discussion started because the centralized --end-of-options fix interacted badly with this unusual behavior. -Peff