On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 06:48:20PM +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 14:08, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> […] > >> Notes (series): > >> From the commit message: > >> > >> “ The test itself is fine and does not hide a bug: > >> `--no-create-reflog` is not supposed to override > >> > >> A source for that: roundabout through git-branch(1): > >> > >> “ The negated form --no-create-reflog only overrides an earlier > >> --create-reflog, but currently does not negate the setting of > >> core.logAllRefUpdates. > > > > Hm. The "currently" reads as if this was a known shortcoming rather than > > by design. > > I read it as “we might change our minds here—watch out”. ;) > > It feels very emphasized. Like the documentation was expecting > your surprise. > > >> I *suppose* that the same applies to update-ref since (I suppose) they > >> use the same underlying machinery. > >> > >> See also git-tag(1) which says the same thing. > >> > >> update-ref should document the same thing, then. I have that marked as > >> a todo item. The changes there are a bit too involved to implicate in > >> this submission. > > > > So I'm quite torn here. It's documented, even though the documentation > > doesn't exactly feel like this was designed, but rather like it was a > > side effect. The test also contradicts the documentation, even though it > > only worked by chance. And as mentioned above, everywhere else we > > typically have a design where the command line option overrides the > > config. > > > > Overall I'm rather leaning into the direction of making this work > > properly. But that would of course be a backwards-incompatible change. > > Good point. It does feel inconsistent. I agree that the conventional > pattern (to my knowledge) is to have options override config when the > options are given. I agree with you both that it feels inconsistent, but I feel somewhat uncomfortable changing the behavior here in a backwards incompatible way. Even if the original documentation leaves the door open to changing the behavior, I think that probably a non-zero number of users has either (a) never read that documentation, or (b) come to rely on it, or (c) both ;-). I think if anything we might consider updating the documentation to more clearly capture the status-quo, but I'd be very hesitant to see a patch changing the behavior here. Thanks, Taylor
