From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:58:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit: inform pre-commit if --amend is used
Message-ID: <xmqqtx1nub9e.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141125034424.GA19161@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>   1. It is a bit more obvious when debugging or dumping arguments (e.g.,
>      via GIT_TRACE), especially if new options are added after the
>      first.
>
>   2. It makes it easier for a script to work on old and new versions of
>      git. It sees either "amend" or "noamend" for the two obvious cases,
>      and if it sees no argument, then it knows that it does not know
>      either way (it is running on an old version of git).
>
>      Technically one can tell the difference in shell between an empty
>      string and a missing argument, but it is sufficiently subtle that I
>      think "noamend" is a better route.

If we ever add more info, would we want to keep piling on new
arguments, though?  Wouldn't it a viable option to use "amend" vs
not giving anything (not even an empty string), so that normal case
there won't be no parameter?