From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9391F859 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753120AbcHSQMM (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:12:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54526 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599AbcHSQMK (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:12:10 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09ED35162; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:11:30 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=WoyltKX304s4tmbARcfApBrXQHM=; b=JNVV5w hYH4JEmoUKO47+Py9LegM5x971S4YOocdTwwrhLLIRdcGsFNs5qRPboVnDbaxXp9 5S1+EMQs58vNcVNSxsoQ1i/HEpo/uSfHh0hKyWQZikZsWTcH0Owf95z/bolabF74 68d5jKTro0wdI09SXfNdBlkAxb5GGVlC6y6FU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=bZy67E6JpjsMBUAiS48i9KnPxcrxIClV paf5DVWYBA3DdXQ99CwI274Y1diHqBPcO0UG912485FkQJ+ez7umjE9BAIrMDUev kB9fUoVszZ5rX6gEJkK8ByubEBC1BQo1tHA4lMbDoY3WO6D7LGnwiIeNY9bzszE5 nLAqzBeVvFM= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A967635161; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31A983515E; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:11:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] cat-file --textconv/--filters: allow specifying the path separately References: <787224ce9a382ddd1180a408e784ca26993e5603.1471524357.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:11:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:49:23 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 96DC4F54-6627-11E6-8483-FCB17B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> I think I saw some code to ensure "when giving this option you need >> that option in effect, too"; they should be tested here, too, no? > > No, I would rather not test for that. These conditionals are purely for > any user's convenience, in case they specify an option that has no effect. > They are absolutely not essential for the function introduced in this > patch series. I didn't say "you would want to test these, no?", did I? I do not want to see bugreports that say "I wanted to use this new feature and by mistake gave only --path without giving --filter; Git should have complained. I found a bug, hooray!" when somebody in the future refactors the command line option parsing and breaks the check you already have.