On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:03:46AM +0100, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 16:48, Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/6/2020 2:41 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 01:28, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> - 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"),
> > >> + PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG,
> > >> + write_option_parse_split),
> > >
> > >
> > > I keep getting back to this -- sorry! So this actually forbids
> > > "--no-split", which used to work before. Unfortunate?
> >
> > That certainly is unfortunate. Hopefully no one is taking a dependence on
> > this, which only means something if they had a `--split` previously in
> > the command-line arguments.
> >
> > > I have to ask, what is the long-term plan for the two formats (split and
> > > non-split)? As I understand it, and I might well be wrong, the non-split
> > > format came first and the split format was a user-experience
> > > improvement. Should we expect that `--split` becomes the default?
> >
> > In some ways, the split is now the default because that is how it is
> > written during 'git fetch' using fetch.writeCommitGraph. However, I
> > don't think that it will ever become the default for the commit-graph
> > builtin.
>
> Thanks for giving this piece of background.
>
> > > To try to be concrete, here's a suggestion: `--format=split` and
> > > `--split-strategy=<strategy>`.
> >
> > Why --format=split instead of leaving it as --[no-]split? Is there a reason to
> > introduce this string-based option when there are only two options right now?
>
> My thinking was, if my concern is "--split" being overloaded, what would
> it look like to "unload" it entirely? From "--split" it isn't obvious
> whether it's a verb or an adjective (shall we split, or shall we do
> things the split way?). Having "--format=split" would help avoid *that*,
> possibly leaving a cleaner field for the issue of "do we
> allow/force/forbid the 'merging' to happen?". But I'm happy to accept
> "--split=<strategy>" and move on. :-)
>
> I see that Taylor juuust posted a v3. I'll try to find time to look it
> over, but I won't be raising this point again.
It looks like we raced :-). Sorry about that. I didn't see your email
until after I sent, and I certainly would have waited if I knew that you
were writing an email to the same thread as I was working in at the same
time.
I'm still fairly happy with the '--split[=<strategy>]' approach that is
implemented in all versions of this patch series, although I do
understand your suggestions.
My preference would be to see if anybody else feels like the trade-off
*is* worth it (I explained earlier in the thread some reasons why I feel
that the trade-off is *not* worth it), but I'd be happy to move this
series forward as-is unless others echo this idea.
> Martin
Thanks,
Taylor
