On 2020-12-07 at 00:30:13, Eric Sunshine wrote: > I read the commit message and looked at the implementation so I know > that this option can be specified multiple times, but this > documentation only vaguely hints at it by saying "options following > it". We could do a better job of imparting that knowledge to the > reader by saying so explicitly, perhaps like this: > > Controls the behavior of some path-printing options. If > 'absolute', [...]. If 'relative', [...]. May be specified multiple > times, each time affecting the path-printing options which > follow it. The default path format is option-specific. I'll improve the documentation in v5. > Since this option can be specified multiple times, should it also > recognize `default` to request the default behavior in addition to > `absolute` and `relative`? (Genuine question. Maybe real-world > use-cases wouldn't need it, but it would be easy to support and make > it functionally complete.) I don't think adding the default is helpful. I can think of situations where people want absolute path names or relative path names, but in what case would someone want, "meh, whatever Git decides to give me"? The problem we're solving here is that Git isn't consistent and can't be used to provide valuable information that the user wants. If a user doesn't care what format the path is in, then they can always specify absolute and it will almost certainly be correct and work for them. > Leaking `realbuf` and `prefixbuf` here. Will fix. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Houston, Texas, US
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
