From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 16:23:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH] push: comment on a funny unbalanced option help
Message-ID: <xmqqtvoc3fgl.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <b72e5848-a51d-a62d-2a3c-36ea6b8582d0@web.de>

René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> writes:

> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Subject: [PATCH] push: use PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP instead of unbalanced brackets
>> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:31:33 +0200
>> ...
>> official escape hatch instead.
>> 
>> Helped-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
>
> I didn't do anything for this particular patch so far?  But...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

Yeah, I realized it after I sent it out.  The line has been replaced
with a forged sign-off from Ævar.

>> ---
>>   builtin/push.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c
>> index 1c28427d82..ef4032a9ef 100644
>> --- a/builtin/push.c
>> +++ b/builtin/push.c
>> @@ -542,9 +542,9 @@ int cmd_push(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>   		OPT_BIT( 0,  "porcelain", &flags, N_("machine-readable output"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_PORCELAIN),
>>   		OPT_BIT('f', "force", &flags, N_("force updates"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE),
>>   		{ OPTION_CALLBACK,
>> -		  0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("refname>:<expect"),
>> +		  0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("<refname>:<expect>"),
>
> ... shouldn't we use this opportunity to document that "expect" is
> optional?

I consider that it is a separate topic.

I thought that we achieved a consensus that making the code guess
missing ":<expect>" is a misfeature that should be deprecated (in
which case we would not want to "s|:<expect>|[&]|"), but I may be
misremembering it.