Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> This patch disallows all no- options, but we could be more open and allow
>> --no-options that have the NO_NEG bit set.
>
> "--no-foo" that does not take "--foo" is perhaps OK so should not
> trigger an error.
>
> A ("--no-foo", "--foo") pair is better spelled as ("--foo",
> "--no-foo") pair whose default is "--foo", but making it an error is
> probably a bit too much.
>
> Compared to that, ("--no-foo", "--no-no-foo") pair feels nonsense.
Ahh, I was an idiot (call it vacation-induced-brain-disfunction). I
forgot about 0f1930c5 ("parse-options: allow positivation of options
starting, with no-", 2012-02-25), which may have already made your
new use of "--no-verify" in builtin/merge.c and existing one in
commit.c OK long time ago. A quick check to see how your version of
git merge --verify
git merge --no-verify
behaves with respect to the commit-msg hook is veriy much
appreciated, as my tree is in no shape to apply and try a patch
while trying to absorb the patches sent to the list the past week.
Thanks, and sorry for a possible false alarm.
> Having said that, because the existing parse_options_check() is all
> about catching the programming mistake (the end user cannot fix an
> error from it by tweaking the command line option s/he gives to the
> program), I do not think a conditional compilation like you added
> mixes well. Either make the whole thing, not just your new test,
> conditional to -DDEVELOPER (which would make it possible for you to
> build and ship a binary with broken options[] array to the end-users
> that does not die in this function), which is undesirable, or add a
> new test that catches a definite error unconditionally.
This part still is valid. If René's work 2 years ago is sufficient
to address "--no-foo" thing, then there is nothing we need to add to
this test, but if we later need to add new sanity check, we should
add it without -DDEVELOPER, or we should make the whole thing inside
it.
Thanks.
