On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:38:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:40:36PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> > Bonus points to anyone sorting out some of the existing inconsistencies
> > when fixing this, i.e. --exec-path supports either the "=" form, or not,
> > but various other skip_prefix() in the same function don't, seemingly
> > (but I have not tested) for no good reason.
> 
> I suspect just because it's more (per-option) work to support both
> types, and nobody really cared enough to do so.
> 
> > It seems to me that having a skip_prefix_opt() or something would be a
> > good fix for this, i.e. a "maybe trim the last '='" version of
> > skip_prefix. Then we could just consistently use that.
> 
> There's a similar situation in the revision parser (which does not use
> our regular parse-options). There we have a parse_long_opt() helper
> which does the right thing. We could use that more widely.
> 
> I also wouldn't be surprised if we could leverage one of the
> sub-functions of parse-options, but it might turn into a rabbit hole.
> Converting the whole thing to the usual parse_options() might get
> awkward, since many of the options operate at time-of-parse, not after
> we've seen everything (I suspect many of them don't care either way, but
> you're always risking subtle regressions there).
> 
> > Or maybe there's some reason we don't want to be as lax as --exec-path
> > with any other option...
> 
> I can't think of one.
> 
> -Peff

`--exec-path` does two different things based on whether you pass a "="
or not: either you tell git where its binaries are, or you ask it where
it thinks they're. It's still true for some (most?) of the other options
though.

Patrick