Re: [PATCH 3/4] completion: reflog with implicit "show"

["Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 07:06:36PM +0100, Rubén Justo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 17:46:20 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> >     $ git reflog sho<TAB>
> >     shot show
> > 
> > That is what I would expect.    
> 
> Thank you for responding.
> 
> Of course that's the logical expectation.
> 
> However I'm not sure if it is sensible to offer completion for
> sub-commands mixed with branch names.
> 
> Furthermore, I am also worried that such an approach implies making the
> user pay, probably unnecessarily many times, for __git_complete_refs in
> cases such as:
> 
>     $ git reflog <TAB><TAB>  ;# the user may be just exploring the sub-commands
>     $ git reflog s<TAB>      ;# the user may be lazy and just want "show "
>     $ git reflog show<TAB>   ;# likewise, to complete the SP
>     $ git reflog expir<TAB>  ;# how often a expir... branch is expected here?
> 
> The experienced user, if not most users, should be intuitive enough to
> circumvent the corner cases:
> 
>     $ git reflog <TAB><TAB>
>     delete expire show
>     ...
>     $ git reflog s<TAB>
>     ...
>     $ git reflog show s<TAB>
>     ...
>     $ git reflog show shot
> 
> This is why I choose to fallback to __git_complete_ref only when no
> other option is available.
> 
> If you think, or anyone else, that these concerns don't make sense, I'm
> open to make it work as you described.

I am happy with the current iteration and I still think that mixing
branch names with options is a source of confusion.

However, this topic in the latest 'What's cooking' is marked with:

 Expecting a reroll.
 cf. <dd106d87-3363-426a-90a2-16e1f2d04661@gmail.com>
 source: <98daf977-dbad-4d3b-a293-6a769895088f@gmail.com>

I am confused about what the expectation is.

Consider this message a ping as maybe the message I'm responding to has
been missed.

Thanks.