From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (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 578CD3DF00E for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 20:06:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774296394; cv=none; b=K9PN44/OWZqnx7lgwqitenBO0VNwvSlKXRUGfbCbWISSq6CsBu+xMKFvvODUd58uYJtoiy3bFWUieAc4i4wP12uXqRSvIgJWV/FyoesbZ0FnBGh6meDB7lhJRbHBYSYAg/nboQML0SIlV+yZlRREADzqo5FY+B9mlShLDkp6tPM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774296394; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oH60xiWekspo1rSgb+2Cfj490lHP3kVg2tw/coM+z2s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d0jFWAbnIiu+H34aCQkC3+RKTFdkcABJTr7Y4+hkh9CwrquUpUNyvxwA8/jbIEETyHU0x1lN+kowICP7WSXOyYYrxvtv/CzVWPW6ac8CaeE0xZ1jzjF5Qr/WYk5jFV+GU0kCjzW+L0HlRzF2iGqFXW5sOTvfyuSI1WU6C6v8YWs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=lkoR3ouS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=VFsL/eYY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="lkoR3ouS"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VFsL/eYY" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F19914001ED; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:06:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.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=1774296390; x=1774382790; bh=fI7sVY66YYcUjsLe9IJvWiGV2NRm8H/ZyF/ZqFEJ6Fc=; b= lkoR3ouSaUTBMp8zjRbPEoPlweb+X6yak3XBI1wKYNpmcWd1rRFtOEGQWfB5UzyI evO5Gilo4ZW0PURSxlBo4uhmgnE0mXbAIO5/+X258XZqwxn/EdEPIcNGzv+J3ORn jSyKz199xRq6SE62YLFNH0XdQmE46lZfN93/lTi/1Hte/Tu+vYbd5uWBYHMhpeIJ OyKcyDkVvFvsNVnqw+cnfKou5BSFx7PkW4YfF0sZZdwk0XkPdrsfGMNasECWPY90 Ww5hnR7r+/Y2R3jDOqwtM9CdCfEsQ73m5W+IYaEQoPiFSXDJkyKXN3YMWqs2C/ak pTx4zCkODztC25cRd13Xcw== 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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1774296390; x= 1774382790; bh=fI7sVY66YYcUjsLe9IJvWiGV2NRm8H/ZyF/ZqFEJ6Fc=; b=V FsL/eYYOl+w7i4QbXQyzKI8aCZgqDYcQupUMcg22UbicaA2Fs+md9Qphj4Ipj2xq oqNewl6EBcJzjGpTzZxslLHCaDH1kqQ/uDySrwULqERpSHZVdHxEB2CAkA0ndXc6 TGQEvaVXSHFkESyuHD8F2dw07Rn5eD3QSxJC1m84X8xOZi9y3MquYbBnPgV6OrmB q7d0Zksy7Eo08u3eXJGFLbyWK6pPGtlQUkGGxRvIs5/sGmCYUK1mgwy8z7W/Z8Ax FjR4QbjhNWLJ9ZK9qZG5PXFT/zD6qQNmggHd8YoYO9Rd4uIN/f7q9BRdKPTCwvRN r52o+PCW/7N++czLymj6A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdefudelieefucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgfgsehtkeertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihho ucevucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpedtffdvteegvddtkeetfeevueevlefgkeefheeigfehveehvdekheelveev fedtheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeejpdhmohguvgep shhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehkrhhishhtohhffhgvrhhhrghughhssggrkhhkse hfrghsthhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehtohhonhesihhothgtlhdrtghomhdp rhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepjh hlthhosghlvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhiugguhhgrrhhthhgr shhthhgrnhgrfedusehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohephigvvggthhgvnhhgrd gthhhinhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohig rdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:06:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" Cc: "Toon Claes" , git@vger.kernel.org, "Justin Tobler" , "Siddharth Asthana" , "Yee Cheng Chin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] t3650: use option with value consistenly with equal sign In-Reply-To: (Kristoffer Haugsbakk's message of "Mon, 23 Mar 2026 20:17:56 +0100") References: <20260323-toon-replay-arbitrary-ref-v1-0-5c7172f675ec@iotcl.com> <20260323-toon-replay-arbitrary-ref-v1-1-5c7172f675ec@iotcl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 13:06:27 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" writes: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026, at 17:09, Toon Claes wrote: >> The tests in t3650-replay-basics have mixed use of option arguments >> with value with and without equal sign. Bring in consistency and use >> equal sign for all options that expect a value. > > If it is about consistency, could you pick one or the other either way > or go with whatever happened to be most used right now? > > Consistency by itself is a weaker argument than arguing that stuck form > is better for invoking git(1) commands, which is what gitcli(7) argues. > > Which is to say: arguing for stuck form in the commit message based on > it being better is a stronger argument than wanting consistency. :) > > Then once one form has been argued for or referenced it follows that you > should be consistent and use the best approach throughout. > >> This makes it easier to distinguish them from positional arguments. > > Maybe it’s just me, but sticking with the stuck form makes it harder to > mess up writing unintended options and positional arguments. Once > written it might be slightly more readable, but the main benefit is > using a style that makes messing up harder to pull off. I am not sure if a patch whose purpose is only to make the CLI invocation "consistent" is a welcome change, though. If we support two forms, exercising both forms and making sure they mean the same thing may even be better, but short of that, a random mixture of styles as if end-user human may have picked one form on this day and the other form on another day may be better than a complete monoculture.