From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (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 C22329445 for ; Tue, 14 May 2024 06:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715669283; cv=none; b=LPHnxAJ6nZ7oO8kGnMAdDBRePJ9SNKAPSH7y8CMkoy6yf913d5bwk7c5VK0mfGhiMCjDYpYvH0qWMv8aSeCHXqBhTeFJSmSJbo8meYMgtyWncSO59/7LO9XvgbZANzRn/ksuCYNJ7mWSAbPBdgf6wyDG8oVMulud9+QdkzINNMY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715669283; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ADFy7c6AQGCryobLErqnirHwu5+Exle7UBjUCSxlU6M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iyymzFgr/nZKnB4cN1M9EwwSRqRfm4EosEd6rRBEhUf7nIqsy2b1qqqImQ9pdDGZpiHdRq1MvXuhzK9ali80RgJXSPvJS8iq5Q1tuD89nBnfZJ9muGCT1DCva1wWdSxY323e9/LKhq5rRBqpjW1N32xovOQVaS+YJz2KPpYCZ7Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=I3XHdSt1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=XHclr9z2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="I3XHdSt1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="XHclr9z2" Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99C913810CA; Tue, 14 May 2024 02:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 14 May 2024 02:48:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1715669280; x=1715755680; bh=RhcfTZOpFO MZRi+amp4d+PMs4DWWGG7o6YURWHBE/84=; b=I3XHdSt1y8mwMfcbmPfpIkHg69 wBNXg/lkCkEb9XV7gIfrWJrwfydU325U8IcfaM031e5UR2eWu80ujP6bY+0TgVtK uiIR9yw8/fK2+PVxdgN514GtURC41meWe5m7AbYqpbsvGFAoS/Ie7ZkVHheWqHwk tKRsJMI/K462JLXbMnG9PiSx71q90tbexupQIvYf1eTsTbO7Np5UuQOtD0LQSVCr 0uw8qNK1LZr/zioQCtaF5nTu61Y8lJiRcSHEbfG7te3p7ZcsNSHdSezNBj+gBgvx ceQIaDMb+3iVQcweGIFyD3pDU+F1OD3V+YQ1m8/4GA0XR1w5yShjC1Kpjzuw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1715669280; x=1715755680; bh=RhcfTZOpFOMZRi+amp4d+PMs4DWW GG7o6YURWHBE/84=; b=XHclr9z2dhhnsa0QNfCqvtsqlz4qbxd3YtkpsXKkfLLD Sy2i4lnZUH1x2TK8dLFeKWo4MM0L8eHQ+zrGFOhH9Qqpvxoul+fa9Ra1NtbT0fQE cCUzeN52CWMESF3jkmfsiPsBWxrtK+FBUG4/BL6vb1c6v3H+SlvR3e9RkkVH5Qnr 7VzkC9ropijBd0tB8f8WTIKJeu6yXzHG7N9dADrsCX8dIg7Cfh+PXOi9c+pBF8/n lh4lcpxfGkDuw4rSCFgVLjP5XxmMyr/6JOTYLJMttmfNmYy7UswPpt/QBW5y7+dG 3M5NCbp2cjC1SgJY81gkIMna+oe0k/NBBT02CbR8TA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrvdeghedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesgh dtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhs sehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepueektdevtdffveeljeetgfehheeige ekleduvdeffeeghefgledttdehjeelffetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfr rghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 14 May 2024 02:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0a74f1fe (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 14 May 2024 06:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 08:47:56 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: David Sanderson Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: git pull --prune --prune-tags yields a usage error In 2.45.0 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PUfVxNEUsp8ceDnT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --PUfVxNEUsp8ceDnT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 07:11:00PM -0400, David Sanderson wrote: > I noticed that "git help pull" mentioned the flag --prune-tags in > conjunction with --prune, but actually supplying this flag to > "git pull" results in a usage error. For instance, the command > "git pull --prune --prune-tags" fails with a usage error. I would > have expected that this would work, since it works with "git fetch". >=20 > I could use "git fetch --prune --prune-tags" as I expected, and > "git help fetch" does describe --prune-tags on its own as well as > in the help for --prune. >=20 > I confirmed that this behavior still exists in git version 2.45.0. Indeed. The fact that we mention `--prune-tags` in git-pull(1) at all is a bug because that command never even implemented this option. I could see us going one of two ways: - Adapt the documentation so that we stop mentioning `--prune-tags`. - Implement support for `--prune-tags` in git-pull(1). I find the value of `--prune-tags` to be rather dubious as it does the exact same as `git fetch --prune refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*`. I am heavily biased though as I understand refspecs just fine, which many of our users may not. But the bigger downside of `--prune-tags` in my opinion is that it doesn't only prune tags, but also fetches new ones. So the effect of the option is somewhat counterintuitive. So with that in mind I'd rather pick option 1 and stop mentioning the option in git-pull(1). But that's only a preference of myself, not a strong "no", and am very happy to be convinced otherwise. So unless somebody does feel strongly that `--prune-tags` should exist and provides the patches, my proposal would be to remove the mention of `--prune-tags` from git-pull(1) for now. We can then add it back in if somebody does implement the option in the future. Patrick --PUfVxNEUsp8ceDnT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF9hrgiFbCdvenl/rVbJhu7ckPpQFAmZDCRsACgkQVbJhu7ck PpTAjg//Uk1vxQ4T8EAg65qeaF01lRgDWqklJIP+QrM1+xDYPYZ/mg1rKVXcdS4v ubVkBSjI+dNtkKA6IT97U3qJ2uzOnLPhypi9AkbUUiIlnB7kYi/qH/I2smC6B35I 4TAEx2vrtxssVBxbFdkzeORv2PZEhVi0SqLt/K2iwlVcH8+BMXaDPD6QzYcBOWSe z6zTev7rhF+h4B0HksxPVq1x1bq/NygWZfD0WFWYYJzaU+on3rMDK+/FVwMekmJ3 9OlJAeXcVz7ytUBXNzqhwzXdIi+T1VD9m4WCKFoueve+d+tRRSwrtWVQI7QTN7CE hDMbyGke7hhjy/g2KKlGycjibAfTKBXFEJib5DhY3XF8oPQOx7byu3XT/UbvAeE6 ib9hbC4PMmNAfbHs3Q+Y6R6ri0E3FuhWW0niB+Ug/YVjUPFnO7RINWkNlOOx0QNK RUi64qL7ZDgjOX+km9gv8p4Wj+Ur4EbbT3nYSF4G7hDOsop1WQ1PZzkcaNaxxkU0 x+30nzxIBzNeyP7VM8n6NmhZpUU/NDsDFG65V+mnu3njh1gLdNf2sll8GmHO8TT7 B/s6znLDrvWiSXTSuxNeMQsNLq0oWKKVTnGi9q/QinkWFb2LgX0ZPe1fAn3cXlVM fFb8t0dmgU076Vxd8t5bjxVA7afIkByxb7ed2yqfdfSegE2m5Hw= =a7Ji -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PUfVxNEUsp8ceDnT--