From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b6-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.157]) (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 6776E47A73 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:48:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729529324; cv=none; b=gv+AMAlc+pnl2WukCZqmbAMYP2UK6d1xxV1/oLU7e4E4Wp1deatxJiyL7MDYhsjrjvjQJ/vD5e3XIjxjvRvX5XsLfMMJSJSDBoLvNMMxC8cBGd/BaRXbADwTzdfFkDdqKxTpNrXF/jcDwN4kucy3OnO/TIflDvtM/kD27ErrCok= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729529324; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f94ClILKllFVGsJmt8h4merwc14F5dtBjDkpTTwLXg0=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:Content-Type; b=gp4uchCF2UZbWFKgXQATGFqeXJpLUtcXLdG30ISaw6uzT/2PBXOB8sTANC3NTLfUzWLsu/6P4aB7+FT8tsXl3o9USEIUp3zYkyDpH5eSNH34dYmvKEvcMC+1ebwQd2j5jejPvpoXp1MSiY7oZVPcxB+WZmiZ73T3wKWbPSGBh9Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=fastmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fastmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.i=@fastmail.com header.b=mWutuLTu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=lzxTdNpO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=fastmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fastmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.com header.i=@fastmail.com header.b="mWutuLTu"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="lzxTdNpO" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.phl.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6176025400CA; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-09 ([10.202.2.99]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:48:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=1729529321; x=1729615721; bh=zPPJJshDYebGj/KDYwfCRMYXHwLwaLc9eZHILl8r+jI=; b= mWutuLTurtE+6yYD490/E6nJSKuEOmFUUrZq2LM1qbXfdr4bRJVDkE20GFMxWUqZ TCc0gGsHI1m15RE4QCi2BuZxhCjYk9K+ADdj9BrhqYxuanZrVxWvKuRNdnS345MD yTTNh/ALv1JAQYYSeT5IUNaCIuLIkjLmv1FmwHsFgHhqtae/PLyjL6qeHQ1LDY2O FkPL0IVV3cK/8+vlpNeY0iZ4Cri+gfaWVeRCRJu20/2c9b7df26OVWq9ophSD3uL bpeyzFaape1UJv71BgLmJ00fUeCzbKMlolrbDnYz/SZ4+6ekfZNky2KigcRFfLoq 00xZfBq54+OW6gHR/qbw6Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :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=1729529321; x= 1729615721; bh=zPPJJshDYebGj/KDYwfCRMYXHwLwaLc9eZHILl8r+jI=; b=l zxTdNpO3vpiUV+lJjElK2I1ZwVrQRYuGTZpJ0Lni5pRT7vjPfoBRUAXWifFgst02 ez4+iN56Z9AJnCJImsvfH+8XoFTK16dKnugKqFz16aVmgUkZc8GmBwR5POJX2WXM jgDikGnG4Fi5NBqtgC/xXnmIt53yylqs0m5wqi7jSCbljo/dP8BlWmf7ANmMSVs5 5zNj2NW71QtjGY5zskGUHZcjAbrvKx41SrzIJUQS8Di2eu3IsDp082e8WTrQaWxr E6zveLyos71WNKMLbhZTN5U137C2/Um+SpZGXG4JE/9VLGuCBga21DbiGwGt/gUR qy1bBrbnzdEeGy/egypNQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdehledguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefoggffhffvvefkjghfufgtgfesthhqredtredt jeenucfhrhhomhepfdfmrhhishhtohhffhgvrhcujfgruhhgshgsrghkkhdfuceokhhrih hsthhofhhfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmqeenucggtffr rghtthgvrhhnpefgleegffegkeehkedtgffgheeifedvgeekjedtvdeglefhjeegueelie ffjeeuteenucffohhmrghinheplhhoghgrlhhlrhgvfhhuphgurghtvghsrdhhmhenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehkrhhishhtoh hffhgvrhhhrghughhssggrkhhksehfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthht ohepfedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtoheptghouggvsehkhhgruhhgsh gsrghkkhdrnhgrmhgvpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehg ihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8b11424c:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id E11EA780068; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:48:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 18:48:20 +0200 From: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" To: "Patrick Steinhardt" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1400: fix --no-create-reflog test and description Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 14:08, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: >> [=E2=80=A6] >> Notes (series): >> From the commit message: >> >> =E2=80=9C 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): >> >> =E2=80=9C 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 th= an > by design. I read it as =E2=80=9Cwe might change our minds here=E2=80=94watch out=E2= =80=9D. ;) 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 mar= ked as >> a todo item. The changes there are a bit too involved to implica= te 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.