From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Robert Simpson <no-reply@MailScreen.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] switch: fix errors and comments related to -c and -C
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:09:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200429160948.GB83442@syl.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f7f9eefc056dd4d9b11dab737e00235b3243a2f.1588150804.git.liu.denton@gmail.com>
Hi Denton,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:00:19AM -0400, Denton Liu wrote:
> In d787d311db (checkout: split part of it to new command 'switch',
> 2019-03-29), the `git switch` command was created by extracting the
> common functionality of cmd_checkout() in checkout_main(). However, in
> b7b5fce270 (switch: better names for -b and -B, 2019-03-29), these
> the branch creation and force creation options for 'switch' were changed
> to -c and -C, respectively. As a result of this, error messages and
> comments that previously referred to `-b` and `-B` became invalid for
> `git switch`.
>
> For comments that refer to `-b` and `-B`, add `-c` and `-C` to the
> comment.
I had to read this sentence a couple of times more than I would have
liked to in order to grok it fully. Would it be perhaps clearer as:
Update comments in 'cmd_checkout()' that mention `-b` or `-B` to
instead refer to `-c` or `-C` when invoked from 'git switch'.
?
> For error messages that refer to `-b`, introduce `enum cmd_variant` and
> use it to differentiate between `checkout` and `switch` when printing
> out error messages.
>
> An alternative implementation which was considered involved inserting
> option name variants into a struct which is passed in by each command
> variant. Even though this approach is more general and could be
> applicable for future differing option names, it seemed like an
> over-engineered solution when the current pair of options are the only
> differing ones. We should probably avoid adding options which have
> different names anyway.
Yeah, I don't think we should spend much time trying to figure out a
general solution here when these are the only differing pair.
> Reported-by: Robert Simpson <no-reply@MailScreen.com>
> Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> Robert, is the email listed above correct? If not, please let me know
> which email to use. (I hope that this reaches you somehow.)
I'll be shocked if this is his real email address ;).
> builtin/checkout.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 8bc94d392b..0ca74cde08 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -1544,9 +1544,16 @@ static struct option *add_checkout_path_options(struct checkout_opts *opts,
> return newopts;
> }
>
> +enum cmd_variant {
> + CMD_CHECKOUT,
> + CMD_SWITCH,
> + CMD_RESTORE
> +};
> +
> static int checkout_main(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix,
> struct checkout_opts *opts, struct option *options,
> - const char * const usagestr[])
> + const char * const usagestr[],
> + enum cmd_variant variant)
> {
> struct branch_info new_branch_info;
> int parseopt_flags = 0;
> @@ -1586,7 +1593,9 @@ static int checkout_main(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix,
> }
>
> if ((!!opts->new_branch + !!opts->new_branch_force + !!opts->new_orphan_branch) > 1)
> - die(_("-b, -B and --orphan are mutually exclusive"));
> + die(variant == CMD_CHECKOUT ?
> + _("-b, -B and --orphan are mutually exclusive") :
> + _("-c, -C and --orphan are mutually exclusive"));
Hmm. Do we need to generate an extra string for translation here? If the
string was instead:
_("%s and --orphan are mutually exclusive")
where the first format string is filled in something like:
die(_("%s and --orphan are mutually exclusive"),
variant == CMD_CHECKOUT ? "-b, -B" : "-c, -C");
may save translators some work.
> if (opts->overlay_mode == 1 && opts->patch_mode)
> die(_("-p and --overlay are mutually exclusive"));
> @@ -1614,7 +1623,7 @@ static int checkout_main(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix,
> /*
> * From here on, new_branch will contain the branch to be checked out,
> * and new_branch_force and new_orphan_branch will tell us which one of
> - * -b/-B/--orphan is being used.
> + * -b/-B/-c/-C/--orphan is being used.
> */
> if (opts->new_branch_force)
> opts->new_branch = opts->new_branch_force;
> @@ -1622,7 +1631,7 @@ static int checkout_main(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix,
> if (opts->new_orphan_branch)
> opts->new_branch = opts->new_orphan_branch;
>
> - /* --track without -b/-B/--orphan should DWIM */
> + /* --track without -b/-B/--orphan for checkout or -c/-C/--orphan for switch should DWIM */
This line is getting a little long. Would you mind wrapping this as a
multi-line comment instead?
> if (opts->track != BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED && !opts->new_branch) {
> const char *argv0 = argv[0];
> if (!argc || !strcmp(argv0, "--"))
> @@ -1631,7 +1640,8 @@ static int checkout_main(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix,
> skip_prefix(argv0, "remotes/", &argv0);
> argv0 = strchr(argv0, '/');
> if (!argv0 || !argv0[1])
> - die(_("missing branch name; try -b"));
> + die(_("missing branch name; try -%c"),
> + variant == CMD_CHECKOUT ? 'b' : 'c');
> opts->new_branch = argv0 + 1;
> }
>
> @@ -1785,7 +1795,7 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> options = add_checkout_path_options(&opts, options);
>
> ret = checkout_main(argc, argv, prefix, &opts,
> - options, checkout_usage);
> + options, checkout_usage, CMD_CHECKOUT);
> FREE_AND_NULL(options);
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -1823,7 +1833,7 @@ int cmd_switch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> options = add_common_switch_branch_options(&opts, options);
>
> ret = checkout_main(argc, argv, prefix, &opts,
> - options, switch_branch_usage);
> + options, switch_branch_usage, CMD_SWITCH);
> FREE_AND_NULL(options);
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -1860,7 +1870,7 @@ int cmd_restore(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> options = add_checkout_path_options(&opts, options);
>
> ret = checkout_main(argc, argv, prefix, &opts,
> - options, restore_usage);
> + options, restore_usage, CMD_RESTORE);
> FREE_AND_NULL(options);
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.26.2.548.gbb00c8a0a9
All of the rest makes sense, thanks.
Thanks,
Taylor
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-29 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-28 23:12 Git error message suggests an invalid switch Robert Simpson
2020-04-29 9:00 ` [PATCH] switch: fix errors and comments related to -c and -C Denton Liu
2020-04-29 16:09 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2020-04-29 16:31 ` Eric Sunshine
2020-04-29 16:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-04-30 11:54 ` [PATCH v2] " Denton Liu
2020-04-30 16:21 ` Taylor Blau
2020-04-30 20:45 ` Junio C Hamano
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=20200429160948.GB83442@syl.local \
--to=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liu.denton@gmail.com \
--cc=no-reply@MailScreen.com \
/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).