Re: [PATCH 1/3] rebase.c: state preserve-merges has been removed

["René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>]

Am 26.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:
>
>>>>  		OPT_SET_INT_F('p', "preserve-merges", &preserve_merges_selected,
>>>> -			      N_("(DEPRECATED) try to recreate merges instead of "
>>>> +			      N_("(REMOVED) try to recreate merges instead of "
>>>>  				 "ignoring them"),
>>>>  			      1, PARSE_OPT_HIDDEN),
>>>>  		OPT_RERERE_AUTOUPDATE(&options.allow_rerere_autoupdate),

>> Anyway, the new help text explaining what the option once did is a bit
>> confusing.  It would be better to focus on what it's doing now (nothing)
>> and/or why we still have it (for backward compatibility), I think.
>
> Do you mean that we should say "this option used to do such and such
> but it is now a no-op" after "(REMOVED)" label, instead of the above
> "this option does such and such"?  I think "(REMOVED)" is a strong
> enough hint that lets us get away without saying "used to" and "but
> it is now a no-op", so I can accept both.
>
> Or do you mean we should say "(REMOVED) for backward compatibility,
> does nothing but errors out"?  I would be less in faviour, then.
> Those who are curious enough to ask --help-all would find it more
> helpful if we said what it used to do.  Otherwise they wouldn't be
> asking --help-all in the first place, no?

When I see an option labeled "REMOVED" then I get confused because a
thing that says it no longer exists is obviously lying -- a removed
option would simply not be listed.  Here the feature is gone and its
option remains, but only reports an educational message now.

Perhaps a better option help text would be something like "no longer
supported, consider using --rebase-merges instead"?

René