From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
Nathan Neulinger <nneul@neulinger.org>,
Santiago Torres <santiago@nyu.edu>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git status always modifies index?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:55:25 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1711252240300.6482@virtualbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171122220627.GE2854@sigill>
Hi Peff,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:56:35PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> > Jeff King wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:27:20PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >
> > >> That said, I wonder if this use case is an illustration that a name
> > >> like --no-lock-index (as was used in Git for Windows when this feature
> > >> first appeared) or --no-refresh-on-disk-index (sorry, I am terrible at
> > >> coming up with option names) would make the feature easier to
> > >> discover.
> > [...]
> > > Or maybe just living with the minor philosophical rough edges,
> > > since it seems OK in practice.
> >
> > To be clear, my concern is not philosophical but practical: I'm saying
> > if it's a "git status" option (or at least shows up in the "git
> > status" manpage) and it is memorably about $GIT_DIR/index (at least
> > mentions that in its description) then it is more likely to help
> > people.
>
> Right, I went a little off track of your original point.
>
> What I was trying to get at is that naming it "status --no-lock-index"
> would not be the same thing (even though with the current implementation
> it would behave the same). IOW, can we improve the documentation of
> "status" to point to make it easier to discover this use case.
I had the hunch that renaming the option (and moving it away from `git
status`, even if it is currently only affecting `git status` and even if
it will most likely be desirable to have the option to really only prevent
`git status` from writing .lock files) was an unfortunate decision (and
made my life as Git for Windows quite a bit harder than really necessary,
it cost me over one workday of a bug hunt, mainly due to a false flag
indicating `git rebase` to be the culprit). And I hinted at it, too.
Maybe I should trust my instincts and act on them more. It is not like it
was the first time that I had doubts that turned out to have merit, see
e.g. the regression introduced into the formerly rock-solid
set_hidden_flag() patches due to changes I made reluctantly during
upstreaming, or the regression introduced during v1->v2 in my regex-buf
patches that caused problems with mulibc and AIX.
I really never understood why --no-optional-locks had to be introduced
when it did exactly the same as --no-lock-index, and when the latter has a
right to exist in the first place, even in the purely hypothetical case
that we teach --no-optional-locks to handle more cases than just `git
status`' writing of the index (and in essence, it looks like premature
optimization): it is a very concrete use case that a user may want `git
status` to refrain from even trying to write any file, as this thread
shows very eloquently.
Maybe it is time to reintroduce --no-lock-index, and make
--no-optional-locks' functionality a true superset of --no-lock-index'.
At least that is what my gut feeling tells me should be done.
Ciao,
Dscho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-25 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-22 15:19 git status always modifies index? Nathan Neulinger
2017-11-22 15:30 ` Santiago Torres
2017-11-22 15:37 ` Nathan Neulinger
2017-11-22 16:10 ` Santiago Torres
2017-11-22 16:20 ` Nathan Neulinger
2017-11-22 16:24 ` Santiago Torres
2017-11-22 20:27 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-11-22 21:17 ` Jeff King
2017-11-22 21:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-11-22 22:06 ` Jeff King
2017-11-25 21:55 ` Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2017-11-26 19:25 ` Jeff King
2017-11-26 21:55 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-11-27 5:24 ` Jeff King
2017-11-27 6:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-27 20:50 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-11-27 6:04 ` [PATCH] git-status.txt: mention --no-optional-locks Jeff King
2017-11-27 6:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-27 10:22 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-11-27 20:54 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-11-27 20:44 ` git status always modifies index? Johannes Schindelin
2017-11-27 20:49 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-11-26 3:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-26 9:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-27 4:43 ` Jeff King
2017-11-27 4:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-27 5:00 ` Jeff King
2017-11-27 20:57 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-11-27 22:50 ` Jeff King
2017-12-03 0:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-26 19:27 ` Jeff King
2017-11-27 0:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-27 6:12 ` Jeff King
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1711252240300.6482@virtualbox \
--to=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=nneul@neulinger.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=santiago@nyu.edu \
/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).