Re: [PATCH v2] cli: add -v and -h shorthands

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 31 2022, Garrit Franke wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 30 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but it is unclear why it is a good thing.
>
> My main motivation behind this change was a standardized user
> experience across tools. Many users use these shorthands out of habit
> to get an overview of a program. Seeing the command fail and having to
> retype it in a longer form creates unnecessary friction between the
> user and the program.

I think this is a good trade-off in this case. I.e. -v and -h are
commonly understood.

>> Again, it might be safe right now, but it also closes the door for
>> introducing global "verbose" option.  What in exchange are we
>> gaining?  Are these short options worth it?
>
> I definitely see your concerns. Ultimately it's a question of which of
> the two flags would be more convinient to have as a shorthand. As
> stated above, users unfamiliar to the software arguably expect to see
> the version number printed when using this flag. A user who seeks more 
> verbose output is probably more familiar with the options, so they are
> more likely to know they have to use the longer "--verbose" form.

This was somewhat discussed in/around
https://lore.kernel.org/git/87zgs593ja.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/,
i.e. there I was arguing the counter-point, that we should have things
like "git --no-progress subcmd <opts>", rather than just "git subcmd
--no-progress <other-opts>".

But I think the alternative won the day (at least in that commit-graph
case), and in retrospect I think it was the right call for our UI in
general.

I still think it makes sense for git to understand a thing like
--object-format at the top-level, and maybe/probably --progress, but
--verbose is probably too confusing. I.e. it would imply verbose output
for all commands (which they're much less likely to have/provide than
the other two).