Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] checkout: introduce --{,no-}overlay option

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

 



On 01/23, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 
> >>> Is this analogous to "git add --ignore-removal"?  If so, can we just
> >>> call it --ignore-removal?
> >>
> >> Yes, it seems like they are very similar.
> >
> > Hmm, I am not sure if the word "removal" makes sense in the context
> > of "checkout", as "removal" is an _action_ just like "checking out"
> > itself is, and not a _state_.  You'd check out a state out of a tree
> > to the index and the working tree, so "checking out absence of a
> > path" may make sense, though, as "absence of a path" is a state
> > recorded in that source tree object.
> 
> I find --ignore-removal fairly easy to understand, and I had no idea
> what --overlay would mean.

What do you think about --[no-]ignore-removed?  That would not be the same
as we are using in 'git add' though, and the slight difference may be
worse than a different option?  Though I suspect not too many people
are using --ignore-removal in 'git add' in the first place.

> I realize this is just one user's experience.  I'd be happy to do a
> little informal survey (e.g. taking the description from the manpage
> and asking people to name the option) if that's useful.

Sure, that sounds like an option if we can't come to an agreement
here.  What would such a survey look like?

> See also https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=32212 on this subject.

Sorry I don't have access to this, and unfortunately not the time to
read this either at the moment.



[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]

  Powered by Linux