git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] builtin/commit-graph.c: don't accept common --[no-]progress

From
Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date
Sep 20, 2021, 12:46 UTC
Message-ID
<088241fc-4070-95ea-b5eb-01c7771ee3af@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<e41e65ddf77c596a7926e75bfc15f21c075d0f03.1631980949.git.me@ttaylorr.com>
On 9/18/2021 12:02 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
Show 24 quoted lines
> In 84e4484f12 (commit-graph: use parse_options_concat(), 2021-08-23) we
> unified common options of commit-graph's subcommands into a single
> "common_opts" array.
> 
> But 84e4484f12 introduced a behavior change which is to accept the
> "--[no-]progress" option before any sub-commands, e.g.,
> 
>     git commit-graph --progress write ...
> 
> Prior to that commit, the above would error out with "unknown option".
> 
> There are two issues with this behavior change. First is that the
> top-level --[no-]progress is not always respected. This is because
> isatty(2) is performed in the sub-commands, which unconditionally
> overwrites any --[no-]progress that was given at the top-level.
> 
> But the second issue is that the existing sub-commands of commit-graph
> only happen to both have a sensible interpretation of what `--progress`
> or `--no-progress` means. If we ever added a sub-command which didn't
> have a notion of progress, we would be forced to ignore the top-level
> `--[no-]progress` altogether.
> 
> Since we haven't released a version of Git that supports --[no-]progress
> as a top-level option for `git commit-graph`, let's remove it.

I agree that is the best way to respond right now. Moving it to top-level will need more work.

Show 25 quoted lines
> @@ -50,8 +50,6 @@ static struct option common_opts[] = {
>  	OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>  		   N_("dir"),
>  		   N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
> -	OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> -		 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  	OPT_END()
>  };
>  
> @@ -95,6 +93,8 @@ static int graph_verify(int argc, const char **argv)
>  	static struct option builtin_commit_graph_verify_options[] = {
>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "shallow", &opts.shallow,
>  			 N_("if the commit-graph is split, only verify the tip file")),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> +			 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  		OPT_END(),
>  	};
>  	struct option *options = add_common_options(builtin_commit_graph_verify_options);
> @@ -246,6 +246,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>  		OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "max-new-filters", &write_opts.max_new_filters,
>  			NULL, N_("maximum number of changed-path Bloom filters to compute"),
>  			0, write_option_max_new_filters),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> +			 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  		OPT_END(),
Meanwhile this diff is easy to verify.

Thanks, -Stolee

Previous: Taylor BlauNext: Taylor Blau
Message 3 of 10 in “commit-graph: drop top-level --[no-]progress”
  1. 0/1 commit-graph: drop top-level --[no-]progressTaylor Blau, Sep 18, 2021
  2. 1/1 builtin/commit-graph.c: don't accept common --[no-]progressTaylor Blau, Sep 18, 2021
  3. Derrick StoleeSep 20, 2021
  4. Taylor BlauSep 20, 2021
  5. Junio C HamanoSep 20, 2021
  6. Taylor BlauSep 20, 2021
  7. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonSep 21, 2021
  8. Taylor BlauSep 21, 2021
  9. Junio C HamanoSep 22, 2021
  10. Jeff KingSep 21, 2021

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.