Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Correcting myself: The zip archive would actually contain
> `diagnostics.log` with some general info about the machine and Git
> build.
So it could contain some useful information without a specific
repository, perhaps.
> Good point. TBH, I had no idea about `git bugreport --diagnose`.
You are not alone ;-) I didn't, either. Before responding to your
patch, that is.
>> + if (!startup_info->have_repository && diagnose != DIAGNOSE_NONE) {
>> + warning(_("no repository--diagnostic output disabled"));
>> + diagnose = DIAGNOSE_NONE;
>> + }
>> +
>
> When the user explicitly provides that option, it seems unfortunate to
> me to drop it. Yes, we'd warn, but `git bugreport` then pops a text
> editor, so you would only see the warning after finishing up the report.
> (Maybe. By the time you quit your editor, you might not consider
> checking the terminal for warnings and such.)
>
> So I'm inclined to instead just die if we see the option outside a repo.
> If `diagnose` the command fundamentally requires a repo (as with my
> patch) it seems surprising to me to not have `--diagnose` the option
> behave the same.
I have no strong opinion. Victoria is on Cc: already, whose name
appears a lot more often than mine in the shortlog for "diagnose"
stuff, so I'll defer to her area expertise.
Thanks.
