On Sat, Sep 18 2021, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 06:03:58PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> > I'm inclined to think that '--progress' should rather be removed from >> > the common 'git commit-graph' options; luckily it's not too late, >> > because it hasn't been released yet. >> >> I wasn't following this series closely, but having seen your fix below, >> I'm inclined to agree with you. Just because we _can_ allow options >> before or after sub-commands does not necessarily make it a good idea. >> > I agree. Suppose we had a "git commit-graph remove" sub-command that > removed the commit-graph file (ignoring that there are probably better > hypothetical examples than this ;)). It's not obvious what --progress > means in the context of that mode. Well, you might have as many as tens of commit-graph files, and could be running this on AIX where I/O is apparently implemented in terms of carrier pigeon messaging judging by how slow it is :) But as argued in https://lore.kernel.org/git/87zgsad6mn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I don't see how it's going to be any more confusing to user than "git -c foo=bar version" (the -c does nothing there)> > Here's a patch that does what you and Gábor are suggesting as an > alternative. Unfortunately, we can't do the same for the > multi-pack-index command, since the analogous change there is 60ca94769c > (builtin/multi-pack-index.c: split sub-commands, 2021-03-30), which was > released in 2.32. If we came up with some call about what we want subcommands in general to look like I'd think it would be fine to convert multi-pack-index to it, perhaps with some deprecation period where it would issue a warning() while it understood both forms. > Anyway, as promised: > > --- 8< --- > > Subject: [PATCH] builtin/commit-graph.c: don't accept common --[no-]progress > > In 84e4484f12 (commit-graph: use parse_options_concat(), 2021-08-23) we > unified common options of commit-graph's subcommands into a single > "common_opts" array. > > But 84e4484f12 introduced a behavior change which is to accept the > "--[no-]progress" option before any sub-commands, e.g., > > git commit-graph --progress write ... > > Prior to that commit, the above would error out with "unknown option". > > There are two issues with this behavior change. First is that the > top-level --[no-]progress is not always respected. This is because > isatty(2) is performed in the sub-commands, which unconditionally > overwrites any --[no-]progress that was given at the top-level. > > But the second issue is that the existing sub-commands of commit-graph > only happen to both have a sensible interpretation of what `--progress` > or `--no-progress` means. If we ever added a sub-command which didn't > have a notion of progress, we would be forced to ignore the top-level > `--[no-]progress` altogether. > > Since we haven't released a version of Git that supports --[no-]progress > as a top-level option for `git commit-graph`, let's remove it. > > Suggested-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > builtin/commit-graph.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/commit-graph.c b/builtin/commit-graph.c > index 21fc6e934b..067587a0fd 100644 > --- a/builtin/commit-graph.c > +++ b/builtin/commit-graph.c > @@ -50,8 +50,6 @@ static struct option common_opts[] = { > OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir, > N_("dir"), > N_("the object directory to store the graph")), > - OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress, > - N_("force progress reporting")), > OPT_END() > }; > > @@ -95,6 +93,8 @@ static int graph_verify(int argc, const char **argv) > static struct option builtin_commit_graph_verify_options[] = { > OPT_BOOL(0, "shallow", &opts.shallow, > N_("if the commit-graph is split, only verify the tip file")), > + OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress, > + N_("force progress reporting")), > OPT_END(), > }; > struct option *options = add_common_options(builtin_commit_graph_verify_options); > @@ -246,6 +246,8 @@ static int graph_write(int argc, const char **argv) > OPT_CALLBACK_F(0, "max-new-filters", &write_opts.max_new_filters, > NULL, N_("maximum number of changed-path Bloom filters to compute"), > 0, write_option_max_new_filters), > + OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &opts.progress, > + N_("force progress reporting")), > OPT_END(), > }; > struct option *options = add_common_options(builtin_commit_graph_write_options); This is a good change, but if you're up for bonus points leaves the docs in an odd where we (as noted in [1]) document the --object-dir and --progress options under OPTIONS, but now only take the former before the sub-command. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87zgsad6mn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
