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 D8F537469 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:43:32 +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 1872 invoked by uid 109); 28 Dec 2023 11:43:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:43:26 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 2708 invoked by uid 111); 28 Dec 2023 11:43:26 -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; Thu, 28 Dec 2023 06:43:26 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 06:43:25 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, "Randall S. Becker" , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse-checkout: be consistent with end of options markers Message-ID: <20231228114325.GA627960@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20231224083206.GA2053380@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 Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 09:18:14AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 01:00:11AM +0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > >> Remove the erroneous PARSE_OPT_KEEP_UNKNOWN_OPT flag now to fix this > >> bug. Note that this does mean that anyone who might have been using > >> [...] > > > > Thanks for wrapping this up in patch form. It looks good to me, > > including the reasoning. You didn't add any tests, but I find it rather > > unlikely that we'd later regress here. > > Surely. I am certainly OK with just dropping KEEP_UNKNOWN but I > would strongly prefer to document what we "fixed" (your "misspelt > option name" example) and what (mis|ab)use the people may have been > relying on we have "broken" (the same "misspelt" behaviour that can > be intentional is now forbidden, and we document that this change in > behaviour is intentional) with a new test. Yeah, thank you for talking some sense into me. I do not foresee us regressing "--sikp-checks", but certainly covering --end-of-options in more places is worthwhile. As it's handled centrally, it can have unexpected consequences for various commands. Elijah's latest version looks good to me. -Peff