Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] fast-export: do automatic reencoding of commit messages only if requested
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 13, 2019, 07:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq1s12dcci.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CABPp-BEzaSW_eY1yTpLr8tXHei0WV54PFGXmjCLAJNN03Zi3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:07 PM Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:53:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
>> This one is good:
>> > + if (unset || !strcmp(arg, "abort"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_ABORT;
>>
>> But here: does it make sense to use REENCODE_YES/NO to be more consistant ?
>> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "yes"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_PLEASE;
>> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "no"))
>> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_NEVER;
>
> Didn't realize there was any such convention, and even have difficulty
> finding it with grep (CONTAINS_{YES,NO} appears to be the only example
> I can find), but the alternate wording seems fine; I'm happy to adopt
> it.I am OK with Yes/No.
Don't we want to treat this as "bool or literal 'abort'", though? Other options that are "bool or something else" tend to accept "true" as a synonym for "yes", and I am wondering if we want to follow suit here, too.
Thanks.