Re: [PATCH 2/2] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:54:53AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> > So....I guess. But has anybody in the history of git ever explicitly
> > configured advice.* to true?
>
> An admin/teacher of a university that wants to teach Git to students
> in a class? Better be safe than sorry and explicitly ask for advice because...
> we cannot trust the default?
>
> >
> > It has never produced any change of behavior, and the whole point of
> > "advice.*" was that git would advise by default, and you would use
> > advice.* to shut it up once you were sufficiently educated.
>
> And now I am arguing that "by default" we should not give advice 100%
> of the time, but only when we think it is appropriate. You may disagree
> (as a teacher see above), so you can slightly change the setting to give
> out advice more often again?
I don't think it's quite the same thing. It is fine not to bother advising because the advice is not really applicable, and that is what is happening here. We do not need to lecture the user on something they explicitly asked for.
But that is different than "by default, in situations where we have useful advice to give, give it".
I guess you are indicating that somebody may disagree on "applicable" here. Which I suppose is possible, but it seems like a bit of a made-up hypothetical.
I had also thought at first you were arguing from the position of "let's handle advice.detachedHEAD=true in case somebody has set it". That seems even more silly, because almost certainly nobody _has_ set it. But if your position is "let's make it do something useful in case somebody wants to set it", then...I still think it's silly, but at least there is room for debate. :)
Show 14 quoted lines
> > I don't think doing it this way is _wrong_. It just feels sort of
> > pointlessly over-engineered. It's also a little weird that all of the:
> >
> > if (advice_foo)
> >
> > will trigger because "advice_foo" is set to -1. I think it does the
> > right thing, but it feels like a bug (the value is now a tri-state, and
> > we silently collapse two states into one).
>
> I think this is what I did in some of the submodule code as well, which
> is why I assumed it's ok (or rather the projects groupthink on how to do
> "default on but still different than explicit on")
>
> If you think this is wrong, what is the idiomatic way to solve this problem?
I don't think it's wrong (didn't I say so :) ).
It's just that idiomatic use of a tri-state like this is generally something like:
1. Set the option to -1 for "not specified"
2. Fill in the values as 0/1 if the user asks for it.
3. Canonicalize any remaining unspecified value to 0/1, depending on
the default. Usually this happens after we know all setup is done,
but sometimes is done lazily by an accessor function. 3. Check the canonical value with "if (option)", or "if (option())" if
using a lazy accessor.And we have fixed many bugs in the past where some non-canonical value slipped past step 3, and did the wrong thing in step 4.
Here it's OK because "if (option)" means that "unspecified" collapses to "true", and that is the default for each of these options. It's just that it's hard to distinguish from the buggy case.
I suppose the more idiomatic way would be:
static int advice_wanted(int x)
{
if (advice_values[x] < 0)
advice_values[x] = 1; /* all advice defaults to on */
return advice_values[x];
} ...
if (advice_wanted(ADVICE_DETACHED_HEAD))
...
but perhaps it is not worth that amount of boilerplate (but maybe at least a comment explaining the situation). You'd also need to check with your patch that each user of the advice variables is checking just for a non-zero value, and not explicitly for "1" (which is almost certainly the case, but it needs to be considered).
-Peff
Stefan Beller
