From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: what should "git clean -n -f [-d] [-x] <pattern>" do?
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 16:04:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87plxhiri4.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87il3enc1i.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (Sergey Organov's message of "Sat, 27 Jan 2024 16:25:29 +0300")
Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'm still arguing in favor of fixing "-n", and I believe a fix is needed
>>> independently from decision about "-f -f".
>>
>> Even though I do not personally like it, I do not think "which
>> between do-it (f) and do-not-do-it (n) do you want to use?" is
>> broken.
>
> Well, you are right, but "-n" is not documented as "do-not-do-it" in the
> sense you use it here.
>
>> It sometimes irritates me to find "git clean" (without "-f"
>> or "-n", and with clean.requireForce not disabled) complain, and I
>> personally think "git clean" when clean.requireForce is in effect
>> and no "-n" or "-f" were given should pretend as if "-n" were given.
>> I wish if it were "without -n or -f, we pretend as if -n were given,
>> possibly with a warning that says 'you need -f if you actually want
>> to carry out these operations'".
>
> Yep, then we'd not need "-n" that much, only if to cancel explicit "-f"
> (provided "-f -f" feature is removed.)
>
>>
>> But that is a separate usability issue.
>
> Yep, and that'd be very different design.
>
>>
>> What I find broken is that giving one 'f' and one 'n' in different
>> order, i.e. "-f -n" and "-n -f", does not do what I expect. If you
>> are choosing between do-it (f) and do-not-do-it (n), you ought to be
>> able to rely on the usual last-one-wins rule. That I find broken.
>
> I fail to see where this expectation comes from, provided "-n" is not
> documented as anything opposed to "-f":
>
> -n, --dry-run
> Don’t actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
>
> This is typical convenient description of "dry run", and current "-n"
> implementation is rather close to the description, that I'd still
> rewrite to emphasize the primary goal of the --dry-run:
>
>
> With these descriptions, the last thing that I'd expect is "-n -f"
> removing my files.
>
> Overall, as I see it, we have buggy implementation of suitably
> documented "--dry-run" option, and the best course is to fix the
> bug, with no semantic changes to the option itself.
OTOH, to preserve current actual behavior as much as possible, we can
probably first fix documentation like this:
-n, --dry-run
Show what would be done, and don’t actually remove anything.
This sets 'clean.requireForce' to 'false' for the duration
of this command execution.
that to me looks like a match for current observable behavior.
Then we can fix '-n' implementation exactly according to this updated
specification, making '-n' really independent from '-f', yet keeping
pure "git clean -n" as well as "git clean -f -n", and "git clean -n -f"
backward compatible.
As a bonus, the above solution will also free our hands in [re]defining
'-f -f' later, if needed.
WDYT?
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-31 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-09 20:20 what should "git clean -n -f [-d] [-x] <pattern>" do? Junio C Hamano
2024-01-09 22:04 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-19 2:07 ` Elijah Newren
2024-01-23 15:10 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-23 18:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-24 8:23 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-24 17:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-25 17:11 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-25 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-25 20:27 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-25 20:31 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-26 7:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-26 12:09 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-27 10:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-01-27 13:25 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-29 19:40 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-01-31 13:04 ` Sergey Organov [this message]
2024-01-29 9:35 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-29 18:20 ` Jeff King
2024-01-29 21:49 ` Sergey Organov
2024-01-30 5:44 ` Jeff King
2024-01-30 5:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-02-29 19:07 ` [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation Sergey Organov
2024-03-01 13:20 ` Jean-Noël Avila
2024-03-01 14:34 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-01 15:29 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2024-03-01 18:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-02 19:47 ` Jean-Noël AVILA
2024-03-02 20:09 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-02 21:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-02 23:48 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-03 9:54 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-01 18:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-01 18:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-01 19:31 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-02 16:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-02 19:59 ` Sergey Organov
2024-03-03 9:50 ` [PATCH v2] " Sergey Organov
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=87plxhiri4.fsf@osv.gnss.ru \
--to=sorganov@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.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).