On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 02:57:32PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Yup, that would be a very sensible first step, regardless of what > the next step is. > > After that, choices are > > (1) we'd introduce new inconsistency among --type=<type> by > matching what --type=color does to what --get-color does, to > allow us to revert that documentation update, or I suppose... though I think that if others agree, I'd rather update the documentation instead of introduce some inconsistency. Yes, there's an argument to be made that if we're encouraging users to go from '--get-color' -> '--type=color', that the two should behave the same, but I don't think the cost we pay for behavioral equivalence between the two is worth inconsistency among '--type=color' and all the rest. > (2) we'd drop LF from all --type=<type>, that makes everything > consistent and risk breaking a few existing scripts while doing > so, and get yelled at by end users, or As you indicate, I think that this option is one we should _not_ do. In the interpolation example you shared earlier in the thread, script writers most likely want and expect a trailing LF after each invocation of 'git config'. I'd argue that this case is more common than not wanting a LF when interpolating with `--type=color`, so I agree it seems the tradeoff here is not a good one. > (3) we stop at this documentation update and do nothing else. To restate my response to (1), I think that the documentation update in isolation makes the most sense here. I, too, was surprised in the same way that Peff was when we stumbled upon this, but I think that ultimately the consistency is most favorable. Thanks all for your discussion and feedback. Thanks, Taylor
