On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 08:46:25AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I guess you could argue this is a backwards-incompatible change, but the > > existing behavior of --no-strategy-option is so dumb that I can't > > believe somebody would prefer it (plus revert/cherry-pick already use > > OPT_STRVEC for their matching "-X"). > > > > I didn't bother adding a test since we're just re-using OPT_STRVEC code > > that is used elsewhere. > > I do not think of any useful way to have "--no-strategy-option" on > the command line (either as an early part of an alias or in a > script) that does nothing (it's not like the command requires at > least one -X option on the command line), either. Just like > fb60b9f3 (sequencer: use struct strvec to store merge strategy > options, 2023-04-10), which met no complaints about a possible > fallout by the behaviour change, I do not think that this change > even deserves an entry in the backward compatibility notes. I concur with both of you. In a project like this one, we should be rather generous with the set of things we expect users to do. But even in a quite generous interpretation, I cannot imagine anybody relying on this behavior, so I think skipping a mention of it in the backwards compatibility section makes sense. Thanks, Taylor
