On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 3:05 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2024-04-17 08:35, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> - die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used
> >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc", "-k");
> >> + die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used
> >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc/--resend", "-k");
> >
> > You probably want to be using die_for_incompatible_opt4() from
> > parse-options.h here.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Frankly, I haven't researched the
> available options, assuming that the current code uses the right
> option. Of course, I'll have a detailed look into it.
>
> > (And you may want a preparatory patch which fixes the preimage to use
> > die_for_incompatible_opt3() for --subject-prefix, --rfc, and -k
> > exclusivity, though that may be overkill.)
>
> I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe the other reviewers would
> prefer an orthogonal approach instead? Maybe that would be better
> for bisecting later, if need arises for that?
The comment about using die_for_incompatible_opt4() in this patch is
the meaningful one.
You are very welcome to ignore the parenthesized comment about a
preparatory patch. There is probably very little value in such a patch
to fix the preimage to use die_for_incompatible_opt3(), only to then
apply this patch which updates it to use die_for_incompatible_opt4().
That would just be busy-work for you and for reviewers. I mentioned it
only because I noticed that the preimage was doing it wrong (not using
die_for_incompatible_opt3()), which presumably misled you into
continuing that mistake.
