On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:15:03PM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Or can you convince me otherwise? From which angle should I look at
> > > this?
> >
> > Heh. This is all very reminiscent of an off-list discussion that I had
> > with Peff and Stolee before sending this upstream. Originally, I had
> > implemented this as:
> >
> > $ git commit-graph write --split --[no-]merge
> >
> > but we decided that this '--merge' and '--no-merge' requiring '--split'
> > seemed to indicate that this was better off as an argument to '--split'.
> > Of course, there's no getting around that it is... odd to say
> > '--split=no-merge' for exactly the reason you suggest.
> >
> > Here's another way of looking at it: the presence of '--split' means
> > "work with split graph files" and the '[no-]merge' argument means:
> > "always/never condense multiple layers".
> >
> > For me, this not only makes the new option language jive, but makes it
> > clearer to me than the combination of '--split', '--split --no-merge'
> > and '--split --merge', where the third one is truly bizarre. At least
> > condensing the second '--' and making 'merge' an argument to 'split'
> > makes it clear that the two work together somehow.
>
> Yes, "--split --merge" sounds no better. :-)
:-).
> > If you have a different suggestion, I'd certainly love to hear about it
> > and discuss. But, at least as far as our internal discussions have gone,
> > this is by far the best option that we have been able to come up with.
>
> I can't come up with anything better, so please feel free to carry on
> (as you already have).
Sounds good. It looks like you might have had some further thoughts a
little bit lower down in the thread, so I'll respond to those shortly
just to make sure that I didn't miss anything before readying a 'v3' for
submission.
>
> > > > - OPT_BOOL(0, "split", &opts.split,
> > > > - N_("allow writing an incremental commit-graph file")),
> > > > + OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "split", &split_opts.flags, NULL,
> > > > + N_("allow writing an incremental commit-graph file"),
> > >
> > > This still sounds very boolean. Cramming in the "strategy" might be hard
> > > -- is this an argument in favor of having two separate options? ;-)
> >
> > Heh. Exactly how we started these patches when I originally wrote
> > them...
>
> You left this as-is in v2. I don't have any immediate improvements to
> offer. I could see shortening the original to "use the 'split' file
> format", in which case maybe one could allude to a strategy here. (I
> don't think "allow" is really needed, right? Maybe it tries to cover for
> the situation where there's no commit graph yet, so you might say we
> wouldn't write an "incremental" one, but the format would still be the
> same, AFAIU. Anyway, that's outside the scope of this patch.)
Yeah, I agree that the use of "allow" is a little funny for these
reasons. That said, I don't think that it's in dire need of changing,
and so since we agree that it's outside the scope of this series, I'm
happy to ignore it for now.
> Martin
Thanks,
Taylor
