From: karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:22:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] cat-file: teach cat-file a '--literally' option
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:
> 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?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>