Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] completion: add git status

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 03.06.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> I know not everybody will the "natural thing" I claim, and if it were
>> easy to support everywhere, I don't mind doing it. But I suspect
>> (without thinking very hard on it) that it would make those case
>> statements a bit harder to read and maintain.
> 
> Oh, I agree with that 100%.  I didn't mean to suggest (let alone to
> demand) to support the possible truncations.
> 
> I simply was hoping that Thomas would respond with your "For a user
> who uses tab completion, it is natural to use --unt<TAB> so by the
> time we use find-on-command-line, we can expect the fully-spelled
> form" when I asked about "--unt=no"; that would give us a warm and
> fuzzy confirmation that the patch author has thought things through
> when designing the new feature.

I understood from Junio's comment [1]

> $ git status -uno <TAB>

that the question was about the short option version not about how
possible truncations are handled.

On the other side I must confess I did not think about the possibility
that the user truncates a long option as in --unt=all. Looking through
the completion file I have not found a place where the truncated
versions are supported.

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/296220
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]