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

Re: [PATCH] Warn the users when more than 3 '-C' given.

From
YDYann Dirson <dirson@bertin.fr>
Date
Apr 12, 2010, 06:48 UTC
Message-ID
<20100412084847.58ce8b8b@chalon.bertin.fr>
In-Reply-To
<7vochrw285.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Le Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:12:58 -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :

Show 10 quoted lines
> Bo Yang <struggleyb.nku@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Output a warning message to users when there are more than
> > 3 '-C' options given. And ignore the numeric argument value
> > provided by the additional '-C' options.
> 
> How were you bitten by the lack of this warning?  You gave four or
> five to see how output would change, spent sleepless nights but
> couldn't figure out what the differences between third and fourth
> levels are, and wasted too much time?

That sounding a bit harsh, I guess it is my turn to take the blame for suggesting this in last week's thread :)

> IOW, what does this fix?

One practical advantage of this warning would be, in the very case of adding meaning to an additional -C, that a user trying to use it on an older version of git would get a warning that the program might not indeed to what the user requested.

However, my first feeling was simply that, while it is usually harmless to let the user specify a flag several time, when it changes nothing, the situation is different when repetition of the flag is important - it is closer to an invalid flag combination.

In fact, I even dislike that use of repetitive -C. One could argue that it is much like repetition of -v used in various programs to raise verbosity. But well, in our case, it is much more than just increasing the level of details, it makes it use a different mechanism - even if each time it is a superset of the previous one.

And what if someone comes with an idea of a "level of -C" that indeed lays between two existing ones ? Will we shift the meaning of the existing ones ? And what about one "level" that would not strictly fit in the existing "superset" chain ?

What about instead using a more descriptive flag ? That would be more verbose typing, but then we can still keep the existing flags for backward compatibility, and we also have shell command-line completion.

I'd think about something like: -C -C -> -Cunmodified (that one also for diff) -C -C -C -> -Chistory

I could also argue that "blame -M" could also be better placed as a -C variant (it is also supposed to detect some copies), and could have as fullname something like "blame -Csamefile".

> I personally do not see much value in this patch.  It would be just a
> hindrance to remember to remove this hunk when somebody improves the
> algorithm to add fourth level of detail to the inspection logic.

Well, the warning should trigger the 1st time that somebody tests his fourth -C, right ?

-- 
Yann
Previous: Junio C Hamano
Message 3 of 3 in “Warn the users when more than 3 '-C' given.”
  1. Warn the users when more than 3 '-C' given.Bo Yang, Apr 10, 2010
  2. Junio C HamanoApr 10, 2010
  3. Yann DirsonApr 12, 2010

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.