From: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rev-list: clarify --abbrev and --abbrev-commit usage
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:09:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190619220919.GG100487@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190619212159.GA6571@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 05:21:59PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:56:54PM -0700, Emily Shaffer wrote:
>
> > > Ah, I see. I don't consider "|" to indicate an exclusion to the point
> > > that the options are rejected. Only that you wouldn't want to use both,
> > > because one counteracts the other. So every "--no-foo" is mutually
> > > exclusive with "--foo" in the sense that one override the other. But the
> > > outcome is "last one wins", and not "whoops, we cannot figure out what
> > > you meant". And that's what the original:
> > >
> > > --abbrev=<n> | --no-abbrev
> > >
> > > before your patch was trying to say (and I suspect there are many other
> > > cases of "|" with this kind of last-one-wins behavior).
> >
> > For what it's worth, in this case it's not last-one-wins - --no-abbrev
> > always wins:
>
> Ah, thanks for pointing that; I hadn't noticed. That _is_ unlike most of
> the rest of Git. I'm tempted to say it's a bug and should be fixed, but
> I worry slightly that it could have an unexpected effect.
>
> > I think a good solution here is to go and add --abbrev-commit=<n>
> > without breaking support for --abbrev=<n>; I'm a little more worried
> > about changing --no-abbrev to last-one-wins but I'll take a crack at it
> > and see what the test suite says. While I'm at it, I'll check for
> > last-one-wins with multiple instances of --abbrev[-commit]=<n>.
>
> I think --abbrev-commit=<n> sounds safe enough, though I worry it may
> get a bit complicated because we'd presumably want to fall back to the
> <n> from --abbrev=<n>. I'll see how your patch turns out. :)
>
> I like the idea of changing --no-abbrev to last-one-wins, as above, but
> the test suite may not give us that much confidence. These kinds of
> cases are often not well-covered, and we're really worried about the
> wider world of random scripts people have grown over the last 10 years.
> Of course if the test suite does break horribly that might give us extra
> caution, but I'm not sure "the test suite does not break" gives us much
> confidence.
I think at that point, based on what I've seen on the list, there's a
tendency to include a config option to enable the new behavior. And I
think that might pass the tipping point of "wasted effort" for me.
The change isn't really enabling anything that was impossible before
(last-one-wins is handy, but it's legacy public behavior now for
--abbrev). So I'm kind of starting to lean towards doing nothing at all.
It's a lot of work, for a not-very-functional change, which needs to be
specially configured to even happen... So maybe I'll save my time and
work on actual bugs instead. :)
>
> > Having done so, I'll also change the documentation here in rev-list to:
> > --abbrev-commit[=<n>] [--abbrev=<n>] | --no-abbrev
>
> Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> -Peff
Thanks for the input, all. I think I'll drop this.
- Emily
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-19 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 22:15 [RFC PATCH] rev-list: clarify --abbrev and --abbrev-commit usage Emily Shaffer
2019-06-14 16:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-06-14 16:18 ` Jeff King
2019-06-14 20:59 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-06-14 21:27 ` Jeff King
2019-06-14 22:56 ` Emily Shaffer
2019-06-19 21:21 ` Jeff King
2019-06-19 22:09 ` Emily Shaffer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190619220919.GG100487@google.com \
--to=emilyshaffer@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).