From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 770441E87C for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 21:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709413677; cv=none; b=W0RqHO3UHsr2YU/ReEOgeYxdgL5I3fH/nwmeEntfSAcD8+hVINj+yfFttc6+IcBcboaRYP+wrAM6K5cBDAxHhWcf4ow2g55w/nJ+4Ntz/1G8EB+pFQ4Lv7LE4XIkErKdhfgGp9AMWUbAr1O4Fahs/U8NgzsIq/6w4dFPH5PoSN4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709413677; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1WFw55QI3s8Ix6aIJPeHy1F+1UOTx1S92eun5OXRWJE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K/s/hEJqU8ZvJ5XN1ATn22VzlEV0OTjwfugBr7lo/kJR4yYIZIHanpnlay+wzngAvB3Na1F2FFaORd/19R8lW5eOX3gfDxXHDEATLz/K/WL3Xv7PW7e2jG7Wfm9QexOKP7NXkH7loMRLXsNv/5gxJN2wO18bzwKKSIfy8Tc122Y= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Ga1m3dMH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Ga1m3dMH" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFE91E2FD0; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:07:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=1WFw55QI3s8Ix6aIJPeHy1F+1UOTx1S92eun5O XRWJE=; b=Ga1m3dMHV91L2gAr52H60mGHPdDQZzEYczkOw2ShCUPK3wLnOfpFpA hUIX31vQ8KDo6TABixuz5PW+JvcyOtKByeWkZV3pfWUzSu2tDhRN/uPXfh9baBB0 NDhBf6Ad2L2/VzVDLXQHbGXnQHQJ7wk6tSYRdprITqGB4xS1c4/jk= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151771E2FCF; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:07:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.176.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 727B41E2FCE; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:07:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Sergey Organov Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation In-Reply-To: <87r0gs8kgw.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (Sergey Organov's message of "Sat, 02 Mar 2024 23:09:03 +0300") References: <51a196c0-ea57-4ec5-99ea-c3f09cd90962@gmail.com> <87frxam35f.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <6033073.lOV4Wx5bFT@cayenne> <87r0gs8kgw.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 13:07:52 -0800 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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EF545DA8-D8D8-11EE-B824-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sergey Organov writes: >> Oh, sorry, I misinterpreted the patch. But yet, I'm not sure that >> specifying that this is the default or not is really useful. If the >> configuration was set to true, it is was a no-op. If set to false, no >> message will appear. > > I'm not sure either, and as it's not the topic of this particular patch, > I'd like to delegate the decision on the issue. It is very much spot on the topic of simplifying and clarifying the code to unify these remaining two messages into a single one. And involving the --interactive that allows users a chance to rethink and refrain from removing some to the equation would also be worth doing in the same topic, even though it might not fit your immediate agenda of crusade against --dry-run.