Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] replay: make atomic ref updates the default behavior
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 9, 2025, 09:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <f6f3ca21-8894-4477-9a00-600cfa53a2ae@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1bfffc20-7e25-4633-a0b8-6660913a74dd@gmail.com>
On 08/10/2025 21:09, Siddharth Asthana wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> On 08/10/25 19:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >> Hi Siddharth >> On 02/10/2025 23:20, Siddharth Asthana wrote: >>> Would you still prefer a --update-refs=<mode> style, or is the simpler >>> --output-commands flag sufficient given that --allow-partial is going >>> away? >> >> The advantage of --update-refs=<mode> is that it allows for future >> extensions such as adding support for partial in a way that does not >> add conflicting options. > > That's a good point about extensibility. Elijah suggested --[no-]update- > refs > which is simpler but less extensible. > > Between: > - --[no-]update-refs (simple, covers current needs) > - --update-refs=<mode> (extensible for future modes) > > I am inclined toward the simpler --[no-]update-refs for now since we don't > have concrete plans for other modes. But if you think the extensibility is > important, I can go with the =<mode> style. What do you think?
If we go with a boolean flag we can always add an optional argument in the future so I think that would be fine.
Thanks
Phillip