Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -950,13 +950,8 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, prefix, options, builtin_clean_usage,
> 0);
>
> - /* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
> - if (dry_run)
> - require_force = 0;
> -
> - if (require_force != 0 && !force && !interactive)
> - die(_("clean.requireForce is true and neither -f nor -i given:"
> - " refusing to clean"));
> + if (require_force != 0 && !force && !interactive && !dry_run)
> + die(_("clean.requireForce is true and -f not given: refusing to clean"));
>
> if (force > 1)
> rm_flags = 0;
An obvious alternative way to clean-up the logic is to do this
instead:
if (dry_run || interactive))
require_force = 0;
if (require_force != 0 && !force)
die(_("clean.requireForce is true and ..."));
But as I wrote, the most important improvement done by Sergey's
patch was to remove the dual meaning of the "force" variable so that
it indicates if the "--force" option was given and nothing else,
while the "require_force" variable indicates if clean.requireForce
was given and nothing else. From that point of view, the
conditional tweaking done to require_force in the above alternative
makes the code worse, relative to Sergey's patch, and certainly to
its follow up, my patch about "--interactive".
