Re: [PATCH/RFC] sparse-checkout: take care of "--end-of-options" in set/add

>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 2:02 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:04:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Right, that is the "gotcha" I mentioned in my other email. Though that
> > > > is the way it has behaved historically, my argument is that users are
> > > > unreasonable to expect it to work:
> > > >
> > > >   1. It is not consistent with the rest of Git commands.
> > > >
> > > >   2. It is inconsistent with respect to existing options (and is an
> > > >      accident waiting to happen when new options are added).
> > > >
> > > > So I'd consider it a bug-fix.
> > >
> > > So the counter-proposal here is just to drop KEEP_UNKNOWN_OPT and
> > > deliberately break them^W^W^Wrealign their expectations?
> >
> > Yes. :) But keep in mind we are un-breaking other people, like those who
> > typo:
> >
> >   git sparse-checkout --sikp-checks
> >
> > and don't see an error (instead, we make a garbage entry in the sparse
> > checkout file).
>
> I think you mean
>      git sparse-checkout set --sikp-checks
> or
>      git sparse-checkout add --sikp-checks
> (i.e. with either 'set' or 'add' in there)
>
> Neither of these are currently an error, but I agree both definitely
> ought to be.  (Without the 'set' or 'add', you currently do get an
> error, as we'd expect.)
>
> > > I do not have much stake in sparse-checkout, so I am fine with that
> > > direction.  But I suspect other folks on the list would have users
> > > of their own who would rather loudly complain to them if we broke
> > > them ;-)
> >
> > Likewise, I have never used sparse-checkout myself, and I don't care
> > _that_ much. My interest is mostly in having various Git commands behave
> > consistently. This whole discussion started because the centralized
> > --end-of-options fix interacted badly with this unusual behavior.
>
> Well, I care quite a bit about sparse-checkout, and I would rather see
> Peff's proposed fix, even if some users might have to tweak their
> commands a little.