Re: Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`?
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 11, 2023, 19:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <645d480be344d_260ff5294c@chronos.notmuch>
- In-Reply-To
- <87wn1ezms9.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
Sergey Organov wrote:
Show 96 quoted lines
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes: > > > Sergey Organov wrote: > >> 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. > > > >> > 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". > > No, see below. > > > > > 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. > > No: --raw in my model clears all the flags but --raw, so > > git show --raw > > will produce exactly the same result: raw output only.
But that {--,--+,---} notion doesn't exist, and I think it's safe to say it will never exist. So, could we limit or solution-space to those solutions that could have the potential to be merged?
What you suggest could be easily achieved with:
git show --silent --raw
But because no other format is explicitely specified, following my notion of defaults, that's the same as:
git show --raw
`---raw` can easily be achieved with `--no-raw`.
The only thing that's missing is `--+raw`, but I don't see how this:
git show --+raw
Is more valuable than:
git show --patch --raw
If you know the default of `git show` is `--patch`, and you want to add `--raw`, then you can easily write the latter.
Doesn't this approach achieve everything you want to do? Albeit with a different syntax.
-- Felipe Contreras