Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 9/26/2022 11:39 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2022 9:08 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 01:37:16PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>>>> static int maintenance_unregister(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + int force = 0;
>>>>> struct option options[] = {
>>>>> + OPT_BOOL(0, "force", &force,
>>>>> + N_("return success even if repository was not registered")),
>>>>
>>>> This could be shortened a bit by using OPT__FORCE() instead of
>>>> OPT_BOOL(). OTOH, please make it a bit longer, and declare the option
>>>> with the PARSE_OPT_NOCOMPLETE flag to hide it from completion:
>>>
>>> Looks like I can do both like this:
>>>
>>> OPT__FORCE(&force,
>>> N_("return success even if repository was not registered"),
>>> PARSE_OPT_NOCOMPLETE),
>>
>> I don't think PARSE_OPT_NOCOMPLETE is appropriate here. Yes we use it
>> for most of --force, but in some non-destructive cases (e.g. "add") we
>> don't.
>>
>> This seems to be such a case, we'll destroy no data or do anything
>> irrecoverable. It's really just a
>> --do-not-be-so-anal-about-your-exit-code option.
>
> I agree, so I wasn't completely sold on PARSE_OPT_NOCOMPLETE. I'll use
> your vote to not add that option.
I am perfectly OK with that. Given that "git reset --hard" is not
given nocomplete option, I do not see much point in "destructive
ones are not completed" guideline in practice anyway. After all,
"add --force" would be destructively removing the object name
recorded for the path previously.
Thanks for carefully thinking the UI remifications through.
