From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 14:58:17 GMT
Subject: Re: js/no-pager-shorthand [was: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2018, #04; Mon, 30)]
Message-ID: <5cd81e58-7cd4-f5df-14e8-2ba3d221e128@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1805011351330.79@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Am 01.05.2018 um 13:57 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Am 30.04.2018 um 05:25 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>> * js/no-pager-shorthand (2018-04-25) 1 commit
>>>    - git: add -N as a short option for --no-pager
>>>
>>>    "git --no-pager cmd" did not have short-and-sweet single letter
>>>    option. Now it does.
>>>
>>>    Will merge to 'next'.
>>
>> I consider your argument that -N is only an abbreviation for an unspecific
>> "no" a valid one. So, I would like to be sure that we are not painting us into
>> the wrong corner by squatting -N for --no-pager.
>>
>> I find -P is not that bad after all.
> 
> To me, `-P` would suggest the positive action --pager rather than the
> negative --no-pager.
> 
> I wonder whether `-!p` would be better/feasible?

We do not have this pattern, yet, nor do I know it from some other 
utility. I do not want to set a precedent.

> Your use case is quite the corner case, I hope you realize that, as it
> seems that everybody else is fine with having -FRX as default options for
> `less`... And with copy/pasting from the `less` output. So introducing a
> sweet short option for --no-pager, for the benefit of maybe even only one
> user, seems quite... unusual.
> 
> Granted, you cannot simply introduce an alias for `git --no-pager`. But
> maybe that is what we should do? Maybe we should start supporting aliases
> without specifying commands, opening the door for things like `git -c
> ui.color=false`, too.
> 
> Then you could add `alias.n=--no-pager` and call `git n show HEAD`, and
> the -N and -P short options could still wait for a widely-popular option
> to require a short name.

But then I can just as well have alias gitn='git --no-pager' in my 
.bashrc. Maybe I should do that.

Given the ambivalence (or inconclusiveness), I retract this patch 
without offering a replacement for the time being.

Thanks for a bit of sanity,
-- Hannes