On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:56:41PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I actually consider "--no-optional-locks" to be such an aspirational
> > feature. I didn't go digging for other cases (though I'm fairly certain
> > that "diff" has one), but hoped to leave it for further bug reports ("I
> > used the option, ran command X, and saw lock contention").
>
> OK, then we are essentially on the same page. I just was hoping
> that we can restrain ourselves from adding these "non essential"
> knobs at too fine granularity, ending up forcing end users to use
> all of them.
Yes, I agree we should try not to have too many knobs. That's actually
one of the reasons I avoided a status-only option in the first place.
In retrospect, I agree that the current option probably doesn't get the
granularity quite right. The idea of "totally read-only" just didn't
cross my mind at all when working on the earlier feature.
-Peff
