From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yb1-f180.google.com (mail-yb1-f180.google.com [209.85.219.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D34271F942E for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:02:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729537362; cv=none; b=kFDgM6uT9e2Xkmj6QfvagrkMBmNGVMpCrnccIgoKgVDExZwKmgpNHxIB55aHjhFqARoau+C1RRzL0pRbcUZwaZE2PTSkoQbC1A39d1JB8nKaWWUsB68e0S8eOYWb6vVBPw/Q2ZXGmCZ4BAdvSPRabT1P3EZNd3WSBRyyVUOwgD8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729537362; c=relaxed/simple; bh=avoVmZtZrCYBSLlMgMUelqMQsmaT2cmhOPxeO6xJJrc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=jwanKtuV1D2HBtEyw5TRgwMq/ftTJE3WYUV8SjwCvCDnEjhLIPFCA84/Sg1hUtnMaflcRwStAunhxcZJlbbcXDo3LKGWELXBb6tmy+jAVXU/s4AaWEZC6J/kRu35+MxGARHKM1UEOU9hwjaNO29bAWYV62lgVsNSJJfaNbShVT8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ttaylorr.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ttaylorr.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=AnP2Kn6E; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="AnP2Kn6E" Received: by mail-yb1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e2918664a3fso4069631276.0 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:02:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1729537360; x=1730142160; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=49B32nYMEJuIx8sKEgHeG3vDhExI3nl21socEBZbUbE=; b=AnP2Kn6EEcS5TmuMP6fUDDJkl4iqDo9BQlqTwjjFecxik5TNx5YVtr9oDYf4oa/OFc yROG6kn3UZcyj6ZvBInNc9Up/heW8Xx13o3I7ms6YOr/yHPoVLwvieJuNkUhsQopApJE 76bFvwKGDkHJjj66XKwGQ1SN/hRIsJNxEoFKcioRnIzNfgMklXAmdIxuNK25ExxAYzrN pK35QTpiTYiqFxXlNUopoV1oJWaqs4Rl4vfTkKVLgliNNgPuX2f0rWYJxeJWjhmThg5C CMH5UXueiZjQgbTwWbUFeh3BWuWx7G94VRp8rNkqJ0eJhVSckrffbkD54Dwa1SB9jUB2 I0ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729537360; x=1730142160; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=49B32nYMEJuIx8sKEgHeG3vDhExI3nl21socEBZbUbE=; b=lMYWSzN8pT4rZK2gTBp6sWs1Kivu9fqsM/AlTLHIVpQkYmjsvtKrfpZFJB8h1oDpcQ ec9tA2xKrdc1M5J8SSohJrKDGw3W8k8T903YmfK6f21DErOtTOY9swk7zNNHN6XTXvXx xSlv9hhyAUJ8MsAi5FJIC1T2tquiNEHcKbhcyH93I4385UjLiNIwYIUDP98dTsUg6IFH K8QUlzyTbHiuMnlyzNwJO9ZvDpC7qeUIgkRoqAytrH8nozlW0axgnvfxnUQ4lADyRDSr 7/6ZeDQZr8DW6uWi8HJc/J691Fxd8Vr++zMdINNE/DzeQXgdC5cBSLOByjy8y8tVtzmk 2YGQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU38sttPxRoxESf3JlCLCUaK6gHarn0SD10CmLAj1kJZ+T+f1YJgaFwVv8DR4rmzv2JxIM=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx1D9daSsDHTwpDYZLEVmozAQ2rury1jjmClJZoxUK7qrJxqNLt pLCPiA2rLnYyD8u0FtmdwHupoGkbIS0HnTx8Xb/J192EOYQU36ahZK47a5IYhLI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFq58zVc/hogNzSuoIpFcxlBtJoFP6bhZQrlZ0Euc8Dr4j+L5YqLvWU4+pm09nCPXcH+3c2qQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:98a:b0:e29:123f:49f with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e2e242b9ce5mr707329276.0.1729537359729; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 3f1490d57ef6-e2bdc9b1f05sm761155276.26.2024.10.21.12.02.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:02:38 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Kristoffer Haugsbakk Cc: Patrick Steinhardt , git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1400: fix --no-create-reflog test and description Message-ID: References: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 06:48:20PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 14:08, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> […] > >> Notes (series): > >> From the commit message: > >> > >> “ The test itself is fine and does not hide a bug: > >> `--no-create-reflog` is not supposed to override > >> > >> A source for that: roundabout through git-branch(1): > >> > >> “ The negated form --no-create-reflog only overrides an earlier > >> --create-reflog, but currently does not negate the setting of > >> core.logAllRefUpdates. > > > > Hm. The "currently" reads as if this was a known shortcoming rather than > > by design. > > I read it as “we might change our minds here—watch out”. ;) > > It feels very emphasized. Like the documentation was expecting > your surprise. > > >> I *suppose* that the same applies to update-ref since (I suppose) they > >> use the same underlying machinery. > >> > >> See also git-tag(1) which says the same thing. > >> > >> update-ref should document the same thing, then. I have that marked as > >> a todo item. The changes there are a bit too involved to implicate in > >> this submission. > > > > So I'm quite torn here. It's documented, even though the documentation > > doesn't exactly feel like this was designed, but rather like it was a > > side effect. The test also contradicts the documentation, even though it > > only worked by chance. And as mentioned above, everywhere else we > > typically have a design where the command line option overrides the > > config. > > > > Overall I'm rather leaning into the direction of making this work > > properly. But that would of course be a backwards-incompatible change. > > Good point. It does feel inconsistent. I agree that the conventional > pattern (to my knowledge) is to have options override config when the > options are given. I agree with you both that it feels inconsistent, but I feel somewhat uncomfortable changing the behavior here in a backwards incompatible way. Even if the original documentation leaves the door open to changing the behavior, I think that probably a non-zero number of users has either (a) never read that documentation, or (b) come to rely on it, or (c) both ;-). I think if anything we might consider updating the documentation to more clearly capture the status-quo, but I'd be very hesitant to see a patch changing the behavior here. Thanks, Taylor