Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] worktree: teach add to accept --reason with --lock

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
> > The reason I suggested re-purposing `add_opts.keep_locked` is to avoid
> > polluting that structure with members having overlapping meaning, thus
> > reducing the confusion-factor for clients of that structure (assuming
> > that a tri-state `keep_locked` is indeed less confusing). That doesn't
> > preclude adding a new variable or two local to the `add()` function to
> > facilitate keeping `add_opts` pure. For instance, it might be as
> > simple as the below patch.
>
> True.  It is less trivial to construct the command line option
> parser so that --reason=<why> and --lock can be given in any order
> (e.g. they no longer can be a simple OPT_BOOL and OPT_STRING that
> can be given independently but needs some postprocessing like your
> patch did), but it is not rocket science and keeping add_opts struct
> leaner will reduce the risk of runtime confusion, I would think, but
> at the same time, the room for runtime confusion would probably be
> minor to begin with---so I am fine, if the coder cannot cleanly
> write the option parser to do so, with the code as posted.

Although the leaner approach seems "simpler" and more obvious to me,
it is subjective, and I can see how other people might find a
tri-state add_opts::keep_locked confusing. So, I'm fine with it either
way and don't consider it a blocker at all.