Re: [PATCH 0/7] Flags and config to sign pushes by default

From: Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2015, 18:54 UTC
Message-ID: <CAD0k6qRPxkdOgAo=0+_f8bcFoL70MSvLDJ_OjrFtVMKtcqVV_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq614deoq8.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My preference on Bikeshed 1. would probably be to add
>>>
>>>     --sign=yes/no/if-asked
>>>
>>> and to keep --[no-]signed for "no" and "yes" for existing users.
>>
>> Incidentally, I just looked up incidence of true/false vs. yes/no in
>> command line options,...
>
> My yes/no was a short-hand for "yes" (and various other ways to
> spell "true") and "no" (and various other ways to spell "false").  I
> was NOT bikeshedding to say "I do not like true/false but favor
> yes/no".
>
> I actually was expecting a short discussion on sign vs signed,
> though.  As "tag --sign" is not "tag --signed" even though we call
> the resulting object a "signed tag", "push --sign" may be a good
> enough way to spell "signed push".  I _think_ signed pushes are
> recent enough that we still have time to deprecate --signed form,
> but I do not think it is worth it.

I agree that "push --sign" would be better than "push --signed" for consistency with tag, but will defer to you as to whether it's worth it to do the deprecation.

Show 8 quoted lines

> So an updated suggestion would be that we'd take (this is a pretty
> much exhaustive enumeration) these:
>
>     --no-signed
>     --signed
>     --signed=if-asked
>     --signed=yes/true/on/1/2...
>     --signed=no/false/off/0

Fine by me. Would you expect those to all be documented, or just --[no-]signed|--signed=(yes|no|if-asked) and silently accept the rest?

Is there a common utility function that does what we want? Basically git_config_maybe_bool but not specifically about configs.

Show 9 quoted lines

> We might want to throw in 'always' and 'never' as synonyms for
> 'true' and 'false', but again I do not think it is worth the
> confusion factor, as 'always' and 'true' already mean different
> things in some other contexts.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>