Re: [PATCH] revision: allow pseudo options after --end-of-options

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:57:46PM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote:
> 
> > > Though in my experience it is usually a static "--not --all" or "--not
> > > --branches --tags" or similar in such a function. I don't think I've
> > > ever seen a case quite like the code above in practice.
> > 
> > Last week, I made a study on how gitlab wrap and execute a git
> > command. I saw the following code [1]:
> > 
> >     if c.supportsEndOfOptions() {
> >         commandArgs = append(commandArgs, "--end-of-options")
> >     }
> >     if len(postSepArgs) > 0 {
> >         commandArgs = append(commandArgs, "--")
> >     }
> > 
> > I was surprised to see the options "--end-of-options" and "--" used
> > next to each other, and the DashDash option ("--") is not mandatory.
> 
> I think using --end-of-options there is pointless. The "--" will always
> signal the end of options (_and_ revisions). So if there is nothing
> between the two, then the former cannot be doing anything.

> > But if I move the "--end-of-options" before the revisions like this:
> > 
> >     git log --stat --pretty="%m %s" --no-decorate \
> >         --end-of-options \
> >        topic1 --not main release \
> >         -- \
> >         src/hello.c doc
> > 
> > The generated command failed to execute with error: unknown revision "--not".
> > 
> > It's reasonable for gitlab to construct git commands using mainly three fields:
> > 1. Flags: for options like "--option", or "--key value".
> > 2. Args: for args like revisions.
> > 3. PostSepArgs: for pathspecs.
> > 
> > And if the command supports these options, it's better to add
> > "--end-of-options" between 1 and 2, and add "--" between 2 and 3.
> 
> Yeah, so the problem there is that the definition of "Args" is kind of
> fuzzy. Sometimes it is useful to include stuff like "--not", and
> sometimes it is dangerous or unexpected. Later you say: