Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] worktree: teach add to accept --reason with --lock

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 9, 2021, 16:03 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqv95j79ut.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <YOf+tANuox4LRD7d@flurp.local>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> The reason I suggested re-purposing `add_opts.keep_locked` is to avoid
> polluting that structure with members having overlapping meaning, thus
> reducing the confusion-factor for clients of that structure (assuming
> that a tri-state `keep_locked` is indeed less confusing). That doesn't
> preclude adding a new variable or two local to the `add()` function to
> facilitate keeping `add_opts` pure. For instance, it might be as
> simple as the below patch.

True. It is less trivial to construct the command line option parser so that --reason=<why> and --lock can be given in any order (e.g. they no longer can be a simple OPT_BOOL and OPT_STRING that can be given independently but needs some postprocessing like your patch did), but it is not rocket science and keeping add_opts struct leaner will reduce the risk of runtime confusion, I would think, but at the same time, the room for runtime confusion would probably be minor to begin with---so I am fine, if the coder cannot cleanly write the option parser to do so, with the code as posted.