On 2024-04-17 09:17, Eric Sunshine wrote:
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.
Ah, makes sense, thanks for the clarification! :)
