Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> @@ -66,6 +68,10 @@ OPTIONS
>> --quiet::
>> Do not report progress or other information over `stderr`.
>>
>> +--task=<task>::
>> + If this option is specified one or more times, then only run the
>> + specified tasks in the specified order.
>
> We should list the accepted tasks somewhere but maybe this can wait
> until after part 2.
>
>> @@ -791,7 +791,9 @@ typedef int maintenance_task_fn(struct maintenance_opts *opts);
>> struct maintenance_task {
>> const char *name;
>> maintenance_task_fn *fn;
>> - unsigned enabled:1;
>> + unsigned enabled:1,
>> + selected:1;
>> + int selected_order;
>> };
>
> "selected" and "selected_order" are redundant in some cases - I think
> this would be better if selected_order is negative if this task is not
> selected, and non-negative otherwise.
It is good to get rid of redundancies.
> Apart from that, maybe this should be documented. It is unusual (to me)
> that a selection can override something being enabled, but that is the
> case here.
I had the same reaction as "(to me)" above during an earlier review
round, IIRC. This definitely deserves documentation.
