From: Thomas Braun <thomas.braun@virtuell-zuhause.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 18:20:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] completion: add git status
Message-ID: <3adf766d-9ae5-dd52-0b2a-5b250aeb566d@virtuell-zuhause.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8tymp385.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Am 03.06.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
>> I know not everybody will the "natural thing" I claim, and if it were
>> easy to support everywhere, I don't mind doing it. But I suspect
>> (without thinking very hard on it) that it would make those case
>> statements a bit harder to read and maintain.
> 
> Oh, I agree with that 100%.  I didn't mean to suggest (let alone to
> demand) to support the possible truncations.
> 
> I simply was hoping that Thomas would respond with your "For a user
> who uses tab completion, it is natural to use --unt<TAB> so by the
> time we use find-on-command-line, we can expect the fully-spelled
> form" when I asked about "--unt=no"; that would give us a warm and
> fuzzy confirmation that the patch author has thought things through
> when designing the new feature.

I understood from Junio's comment [1]

> $ git status -uno <TAB>

that the question was about the short option version not about how
possible truncations are handled.

On the other side I must confess I did not think about the possibility
that the user truncates a long option as in --unt=all. Looking through
the completion file I have not found a place where the truncated
versions are supported.

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/296220