On Tue, Aug 24 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> If we're looking for things to clean up, I do like the conversion to the >> parse-options API instead of reading argv ourselves, but probably >> otherwise prefer the code as-is instead of split across many files. >> >> But I may be in the minority, and there may be others who do find the >> split-up version easier to grok. > > FWIW, you're not alone. I too like the use of parse_options, but I > fail to be enthused by changes to churn the test helper binary. I think it's an improvement as-is & would like you to pick it up, but I understand if you disagree. This series converts the code to parse_options(), but also changes the perf test to not load config, and adds a --refresh option for a new perf test. I tried to make that readable all in one function, but I think it just ends up being more of a confusing if/else jungle than the current state. I don't think I'm the right person to re-roll this in that way & argue for it being an improvement when I don't think it would be.
