Re: Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`?

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 11, 2023, 19:10 UTC
Message-ID: <645d3dbf785a5_26069229463@chronos.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <877cte200m.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

Sergey Organov wrote:

Show 39 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> > Sergey Organov wrote:
> >
> >> I'd rather think about generic interface for setting/clearing
> >> (multiple) bits through CI than resorting to such convenience
> >> tricks. Once that is in place, one will be able to say "I need these
> >> bits only", "I need to turn these bit(s) on", and "I need to turn
> >> these bit(s) off" conveniently and universally in any part of Git CI
> >> where it's needed.
> >
> > It's possible to achieve both.
> >
> > Imagine your ideal explicit interface. In that interface the default
> > is no output, so you *have* to specify all the bits, for example:
> >
> >   git show --patch
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. There is no point in making "git show" to
> have no output by default, please see below.
> 
> >
> > Or:
> >
> >   git show --raw
> >
> > In this ideal interface it's clear what the user wants to do, because
> > it's explicit.
> >
> >   git show --patch --raw --no-patch
> >
> > Agreed?
> >
> > My proposal achieves your ideal explicit interface, except when no
> > format is specified (e.g. `git show`), a default format is chosen for
> > the user, but that's *only* if the user hasn't specified any format.
> 
> My point is that the default format should be selected as if it has been
> provided by existing options, rather than by some magic hidden in the
> code.

But why?

I don't see any benefit, only drawbacks.

Show 25 quoted lines

> > If you explicitely specify the output format that you want, then the
> > default is irrelevant to you, thus you have your ideal explicit
> > interface.
> 
> That's not what I had in mind, sorry. It'd rather be something like:
> 
>   --raw: set "raw" bit and clear all the rest
>   --+raw set "raw" bit  (== current --raw)
>   ---raw clear "raw" bit (== --no-raw)
> 
> In this model
> 
>   git show
> 
> would be just an alias for
> 
>   git log -n1 --patch --cc
> 
> and no support for a separate command would be need in the first place.
> 
>   git show --raw
> 
> would then produce expected output that makes sense due to the common
> option processing rules, not because somebody had implemented some
> arbitrary "defaults" for the command.

But now you are at the mercy of those "arbitrary defaults".

Let's say those defaults change, and now the default output of `git show` is `--stat`.

Now to generate the same output you have to do:

  git show --raw

in one version of git, and:

  git show --no-stat --patch --raw

in another.

This forces the user to know what is the default of every command.

Why force this mental burden?

If I want both patch and raw, then why not explicitely say so:

  git show --patch --raw

And forget about the current defaults for that command.

-- 
Felipe Contreras