From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Have a flag to stop the option parsing at the first argument. Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:30:17 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <20071217095014.GF7453@artemis.madism.org> <30351C09-8BED-4D81-ABDD-2E079B4D54D2@wincent.com> <20071217114703.GH7453@artemis.madism.org> <3CF3CEA5-72F1-47D1-ADB9-37F5C2E292A8@wincent.com> <26962818-F702-44D2-BD26-95D74CE21F0D@wincent.com> <223E3B44-92DA-4861-83D6-67E56F70E784@wincent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Pierre Habouzit , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 17 14:31:00 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J4G3f-0006eI-3Y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:30:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756731AbXLQNae (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:30:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756632AbXLQNad (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:30:33 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:40675 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753891AbXLQNac (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:30:32 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2007 13:30:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 17 Dec 2007 14:30:31 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+kQVo9gsekcU/xMewqKBsgAdBOs1fzdTr+sNwcgs +jEv5/FwTWdPHT X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <223E3B44-92DA-4861-83D6-67E56F70E784@wincent.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > El 17/12/2007, a las 13:55, Johannes Schindelin escribi?: > > > I never had any problems explaining why "-p" goes before the > > subcommand here. Never. > > Would be even better if there was nothing to explain and it all just > worked, which is what I'm proposing here. As I said, -p is the only > special option which clashes with any non-special uses. Even in the best of circumstances, you have to teach people a little. > But leaving -p aside, will you oppose any patches that make it possible > for people to write stuff like: > > git init --bare > > Personally, I think this is an obvious usability improvement worth > striving for. Given that "git --bare init" will continue to work under > what I'm proposing, I really can't see any worthwhile argument against > it. Because we're talking about a UI improvement for newcomers at no > cost to old timers. My reasoning is like as for "-p". "--bare" is not special to "init". It makes git not guess, but work on the current directory as a bare repository. In my experience, it is easier to give people a clear-cut distinction between different concepts. Then way fewer surprises will hassle them later. Ciao, Dscho