Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I'm still arguing in favor of fixing "-n", and I believe a fix is needed
>> independently from decision about "-f -f".
>
> Even though I do not personally like it, I do not think "which
> between do-it (f) and do-not-do-it (n) do you want to use?" is
> broken.
Well, you are right, but "-n" is not documented as "do-not-do-it" in the
sense you use it here.
> It sometimes irritates me to find "git clean" (without "-f"
> or "-n", and with clean.requireForce not disabled) complain, and I
> personally think "git clean" when clean.requireForce is in effect
> and no "-n" or "-f" were given should pretend as if "-n" were given.
> I wish if it were "without -n or -f, we pretend as if -n were given,
> possibly with a warning that says 'you need -f if you actually want
> to carry out these operations'".
Yep, then we'd not need "-n" that much, only if to cancel explicit "-f"
(provided "-f -f" feature is removed.)
>
> But that is a separate usability issue.
Yep, and that'd be very different design.
>
> What I find broken is that giving one 'f' and one 'n' in different
> order, i.e. "-f -n" and "-n -f", does not do what I expect. If you
> are choosing between do-it (f) and do-not-do-it (n), you ought to be
> able to rely on the usual last-one-wins rule. That I find broken.
I fail to see where this expectation comes from, provided "-n" is not
documented as anything opposed to "-f":
-n, --dry-run
Don’t actually remove anything, just show what would be done.
This is typical convenient description of "dry run", and current "-n"
implementation is rather close to the description, that I'd still
rewrite to emphasize the primary goal of the --dry-run:
-n, --dry-run
Show what would be done, and don’t actually remove anything.
With these descriptions, the last thing that I'd expect is "-n -f"
removing my files.
Overall, as I see it, we have buggy implementation of suitably
documented "--dry-run" option, and the best course is to fix the
bug, with no semantic changes to the option itself.
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
