Hi,
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 3:44 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looking good, just one comment on one small hunk...
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 6:52 AM Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> > @@ builtin/replay.c: int cmd_replay(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix
> > -
> > strvec_pushl(&rev_walk_args, "", argv[2], "--not", argv[1], NULL);
> >
> > ++ /*
> > ++ * TODO: For now, let's warn when we see an option that we are
> > ++ * going to override after setup_revisions() below. In the
> > ++ * future we might want to either die() or allow them if we
> > ++ * think they could be useful though.
> > ++ */
> > ++ for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
> > ++ if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--reverse") || !strcmp(argv[i], "--date-order") ||
> > ++ !strcmp(argv[i], "--topo-order") || !strcmp(argv[i], "--author-date-order") ||
> > ++ !strcmp(argv[i], "--full-history"))
> > ++ warning(_("option '%s' will be overridden"), argv[i]);
> > ++ }
> > ++
>
> Two things:
>
> 1) Not sure it makes sense to throw a warning with --topo-order or
> --full-history, since they would result in a value matching what we
> would be setting anyway.
Yeah, I am not sure about this either. About "--reverse" I think it
makes sense because even if the command is setting the reverse bit, it
would be possible to reverse the reverse like Dscho wanted. But I
agree "--topo-order" and "--full-history" will very unlikely be reused
for anything else in the future.
> 2) This seems like an inefficient way to provide this warning; could
> we avoid parsing the arguments for an extra time? Perhaps instead
> a) set the desired values here, before setup_revisions()
> b) after setup_revisions, check whether these values differ from the
> desired values, if so throw a warning.
> c) set the desired values, again
Yeah, that would work. The downside is that it would be more difficult
in the warning to tell the user which command line option was
overridden as there are some values changed by different options.
Maybe we can come up with a warning message that is still useful and
enough for now, as the command is supposed to be used by experienced
users. Perhaps something like:
warning(_("some rev walking options will be overridden as '%s' bit in
'struct rev_info' will be forced"), "sort_order");
Thanks!
