Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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:
>
>
> 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.
OTOH, to preserve current actual behavior as much as possible, we can
probably first fix documentation like this:
-n, --dry-run
Show what would be done, and don’t actually remove anything.
This sets 'clean.requireForce' to 'false' for the duration
of this command execution.
that to me looks like a match for current observable behavior.
Then we can fix '-n' implementation exactly according to this updated
specification, making '-n' really independent from '-f', yet keeping
pure "git clean -n" as well as "git clean -f -n", and "git clean -n -f"
backward compatible.
As a bonus, the above solution will also free our hands in [re]defining
'-f -f' later, if needed.
WDYT?
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
