Re: [PATCH 1/2] am: add explicit "--retry" option

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 10, 2024, 08:36 UTC
Message-ID: <16a6b206-1733-4d64-89e6-c3e2368903ac@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240608112920.GC2966571@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi Peff and Junio

On 08/06/2024 12:29, Jeff King wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 09:48:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> But I do think as a general rule we should never provide any action
> _only_ through heuristics like "is stdin a tty". We should let the user
> be explicit, and use heuristics to guess the right thing when they don't
> feel like being so.

I agree that's a good general rule to have

>>> "--retry" is a horrible word, in that it makes it sound like it will
>>> keep trying to apply the same patch over and over until it applies
>>> cleanly or something.

"retry" means "try once more", so I think it is a reasonable name for this option. (Programs often retrying a failing operation in a loop but then they are retrying many times.)

I haven't looked at these patches in detail so I cannot comment on the code changes but I do think the general aim is a good one.

Best Wishes

Phillip