On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 02:33:02PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It seems that this topic is waiting for a reroll? > > > > I think we could go either way. I outlined a few further possible steps, > > but there is no need to hold up this first step. The only question is > > whether or not to add a single test to show off and protect the > > improvement. > > Hmph, a few messages upthread > <UZMh2lyzbLOgsf0PXfMnq6HnWVnCK3y36jY3IMKUykPi74ztNucf8bgywoeO0DdeApq31JDDGMZiEya99zAcI3l8y_zcVqiN8FpEnT1DRZU=@proton.me> > (Ugh, why do some MUAs or mail providers use such an overly long > message ID, Yuck) was where I got the impression that we were > waiting for a reroll. Yeah, I think Philip was offering to add some tests. Since he has been quiet since, I do not have a strong opinion on whether we should just take it as-is or let it go unless he comes back. > I am not all that convinced that sprinkling setup_diff_pager() call > all over the place is a good idea from longer-term maintainability's > sake to begin with, by the way. What problem are we really solving? > Folks who run "git diff --no-such-option" see "behaviour inconsistency"? > All I see is "error: invalid option: --invalid" followed by a help message, > which is quite expected. I think it is just about not starting the pager when there is no useful output produced. Depending on your pager config, it is a little nicer if we avoid it for a one-liner error. E.g., I do not use "-F", so "git diff foo bar" drops me into the pager with a single error line. -Peff
