From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:33:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] replay: make atomic ref updates the default
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1LJkVmn4GFE2jmPGORRNVOe=vuC38fmra1TVL8cAsqRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a72a2d7e-06ec-4275-812a-cb1e20902c90@gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 6:57 AM Siddharth Asthana
<siddharthasthana31@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given your feedback in the other thread about `--ref-action` potentially
> being
> clearer than `--update-refs`, would it make sense to align both?
>
> Option 1: `replay.refAction` ↔ `--ref-action=(update|print)`
> Option 2: `replay.updateRefs` ↔ `--update-refs=(yes|print)`
>
> I am leaning toward Option 1 because:
> - "ref-action" clearly conveys "what action to take on refs"
> - The config name `replay.refAction` directly mirrors the option
> - It's more obvious what the relationship is
>
> What do you think? I am happy to go with either approach or a different
> naming
> scheme if you have a preference.

I prefer Option 1.

Thanks.