Re: [PATCH 3/5] commit-graph: use parse_options_concat()

> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 06:03:58PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>> > I'm inclined to think that '--progress' should rather be removed from
>> > the common 'git commit-graph' options; luckily it's not too late,
>> > because it hasn't been released yet.
>>
>> I wasn't following this series closely, but having seen your fix below,
>> I'm inclined to agree with you. Just because we _can_ allow options
>> before or after sub-commands does not necessarily make it a good idea.
>>
> I agree. Suppose we had a "git commit-graph remove" sub-command that
> removed the commit-graph file (ignoring that there are probably better
> hypothetical examples than this ;)). It's not obvious what --progress
> means in the context of that mode.

> Here's a patch that does what you and Gábor are suggesting as an
> alternative. Unfortunately, we can't do the same for the
> multi-pack-index command, since the analogous change there is 60ca94769c
> (builtin/multi-pack-index.c: split sub-commands, 2021-03-30), which was
> released in 2.32.

> Anyway, as promised:
>
> --- 8< ---
>
> Subject: [PATCH] builtin/commit-graph.c: don't accept common --[no-]progress
>
> In 84e4484f12 (commit-graph: use parse_options_concat(), 2021-08-23) we
> unified common options of commit-graph's subcommands into a single
> "common_opts" array.
>
> But 84e4484f12 introduced a behavior change which is to accept the
> "--[no-]progress" option before any sub-commands, e.g.,
>
>     git commit-graph --progress write ...
>
> Prior to that commit, the above would error out with "unknown option".
>
> There are two issues with this behavior change. First is that the
> top-level --[no-]progress is not always respected. This is because
> isatty(2) is performed in the sub-commands, which unconditionally
> overwrites any --[no-]progress that was given at the top-level.
>
> But the second issue is that the existing sub-commands of commit-graph
> only happen to both have a sensible interpretation of what `--progress`
> or `--no-progress` means. If we ever added a sub-command which didn't
> have a notion of progress, we would be forced to ignore the top-level
> `--[no-]progress` altogether.
>
> Since we haven't released a version of Git that supports --[no-]progress
> as a top-level option for `git commit-graph`, let's remove it.
>
> Suggested-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
> ---
>  builtin/commit-graph.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/commit-graph.c b/builtin/commit-graph.c
> index 21fc6e934b..067587a0fd 100644
> --- a/builtin/commit-graph.c
> +++ b/builtin/commit-graph.c
> @@ -50,8 +50,6 @@ static struct option common_opts[] = {
>  	OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>  		   N_("dir"),
>  		   N_("the object directory to store the graph")),
> -	OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> -		 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  	OPT_END()
>  };
>
> @@ -95,6 +93,8 @@ static int graph_verify(int argc, const char **argv)
>  	static struct option builtin_commit_graph_verify_options[] = {
>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "shallow", &opts.shallow,
>  			 N_("if the commit-graph is split, only verify the tip file")),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> +			 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  		OPT_END(),
>  	};
>  	struct option *options = add_common_options(builtin_commit_graph_verify_options);
> @@ -246,6 +246,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv)
>  		OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "max-new-filters", &write_opts.max_new_filters,
>  			NULL, N_("maximum number of changed-path Bloom filters to compute"),
>  			0, write_option_max_new_filters),
> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress,
> +			 N_("force progress reporting")),
>  		OPT_END(),
>  	};
>  	struct option *options = add_common_options(builtin_commit_graph_write_options);