On 02/02/2017 03:00 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote: >> Personally, I agree with you that >>> Adding more long options that git commands learn along the way is >>> always an improvement. >> However, people may start complaining that their terminal becomes too >> cluttered when doing a double-Tab. In my cover letter, I go to length >> about this. My assumption was that all options that are mentioned in the >> introduction of the command man-page should be important enough to have >> them in the completion list. > > But that doesn't mean that the ones not mentioned in the synopsis > section are not worth completing. Absolutely. What I meant is that at least the options from the synopsis should be contained in the set of completable options. >> Btw, I haven't found that non-destructive options should not be eligible >> for completion. To avoid confusion about this in the future, I suggest >> to also change the documentation: >> >> index 933bb6e..96f1c7f 100644 >> --- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash >> +++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash >> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ >> # *) git email aliases for git-send-email >> # *) tree paths within 'ref:path/to/file' expressions >> # *) file paths within current working directory and index >> -# *) common --long-options >> +# *) common non-destructive --long-options > > I don't mind such a change, but I don't think that list was ever meant > to be comprehensive or decisive. It is definitely not the former, as > it's missing several things that the completion script does support. > OTOH, it talks about .git/remotes, which has been considered legacy > for quite some years (though it's right, because the completion script > still supports it). Then let's not do that change, because for some commands destructive long-options have been in the list of completed options for quite a while. Given that, the above change of the documentation, might stir up more confusion than it settles.