Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option
- From
karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 25, 2015, 11:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <553B78E2.5070608@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh9s9gqw9.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
On 04/22/2015 02:06 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > > > It's easy to be blinded into thinking that cat-file's new option > > should be named --literally since it was inspired by the --literally > > option of hash-object, but indeed it may not be the best choice. > > Yeah, I wouldn't even say "inspired". It was envisioned as a > counter-part debugging aid, nothing more. > > Is there any other way to make cat-file looser other than accepting > an unknown type name from the future? If so, then perhaps it may > make sense to give it a generic name that implys that we would > trigger such additional looseness in the future. But as the > inventor of it as a debugging aid, I would say a name that spells > out the specific way this option is being loose, e.g. > > > --allow-bogus-type > > or with s/bogus/unknown/, best describes what it currently does.
Yes this gives the best description, but its large, while we could use something like --no-strict instead. Is the size worth the trade-off for a better description?
Show 5 quoted lines
> > Thanks. > > >