Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 05/11] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:01:09PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> +     OPT_STRING('y', "transport-version", &transport_version,
>> +                N_("transport-version"),
>> +                N_("specify transport version to be used")),
>
> Interesting choice for the short option ("-v" would be nice, but
> obviously it is taken). Do we want to delay on claiming the
> short-and-sweet 'y' until we are sure this is something people will use
> a lot? In an ideal world, it is not (i.e., auto-upgrade and other tricks
> become good enough that nobody bothers to specify it manually).

I made the choice this way:
"Oh crap! -v is taken. so which letter is most likely not taken, so I
can move on?"

So if you have any other proposal with actual reasons I'd switch in a
heart beat.
I figured the -y is good to testing and debugging, but in an ideal
world we don't
want people messing with the transport option because of automatic upgrades
as you said.

Or do you rather hint on dropping the short option at all, and just having NULL
in the field?

>
> -Peff