Re: [PATCH v2] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 4, 2024, 19:03 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo7btom4u.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <87h6hl96z7.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

>> The reason for the behaviour can be explained this way:
>>
>>  * "git clean" (with neither -i nor -n.  The user wants the default
>>    mode that has no built-in protection will be stopped without -f.
>>
>>  * "git clean -n".  The user wants the dry-run mode that has its own
>>    protection, i.e. being always no-op to the files, so there is no
>>    need to fail here for the lack of "-f".
>>
>>  * "git clean --interactive".  The user wants the interactive mode
>>    that has its own protection, i.e. giving the end-user a chance to
>>    say "oh, I didn't mean to remove these files, 'q'uit from this
>>    mistake", so there is no need to fail here for the lack of "-f".
>
> Well, if we remove -i from error message as well, then yes, this makes
> sense.
> ...
> I then suggest to consider to remove mention of -i from
> clean.requireForce description as well.

The follow-up patch you just reviewed in the other thread does exactly that.

This is a tangent, but before finalizing the version that complains "clean.requireForce is in effect and you did not give me -f" without mentioning "-i" or "-n", I asked gemini.google.com to proofread the patch and and one of its suggestion was to use this:

    "clean.requireForce is true.  Use -f to override, or consider
    using -n (dry-run) or -i (interactive) for a safer workflow."

as a possibly cleaner message. It is the opposite of what both of us concluded to be good in this exchange, but in some sense, it does sound more helpful to end users, which I somehow found amusing.