Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年3月15日周一 下午12:38写道：
>
> "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> One thing I forgot to mention.
>
> > +static int opt_pass_trailer(const struct option *opt, const char *arg, int unset)
> > +{
> > + if (unset) {
> > + strvec_clear(&run_trailer.args);
> > + return -1;
>
> What input is this part of the code designed to handle, and what
> outcome does it want to show to the user?
>
> Does the test added in this patch cover this codepath, where unset
> is true?
>
> I think this codepath is reached when the command line says
> "--no-trailer", and I am guessing that by clearing the code wants to
> say "ignore the accumulated trailers and start accumulating afresh",
> i.e.
>
> git commit --trailer='T1: V1' --trailer='T2: V2' \
> --no-trailer \
> --trailer='T3: V3'
>
> would want to add only the "T3: V3" trailer; which is a sensible
> design, but I do not think returning -1 would be compatible with
> that design.
>
> If on the other hand the code wants to say "--no-trailer is a
> command line error", then using PARSE_OPT_NONEG to let the
> parse-options API issue an error message and die would be more
> appropriate. That is an often used pattern for an option that can
> appear on the command line only once without accumulating, which may
> be less appropriate for the "--trailer", though.
>
As you said, what I want to express is "--no-trailer is acommand line error".
`--no-trailer` may don't have any big benefits for users.
I will follow you suggections.
> > + }
> > + strvec_pushl(&run_trailer.args, "--trailer", arg, NULL);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
