On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I suspect it is pretty much orthogonal to the "use user's default without > being told from the command line", but it might be a worthy goal to introduce > a mechanism for the scripts to accept "safe" default options from the end user > while rejecting undesirable ones that would interfere with the way it uses > plumbing. > > For example, gitk drives "git rev-list" and many options you give from the > command line (e.g. "gitk --all --simplify-merges -- drivers/") are passed to > the underlying plumbing. > > This is a double edged sword. When we add new features to git-rev-list, (e.g. > --simplify-merges or --simplify-by-decoration are fairly recent inventions > that did not exist when gitk was written originally), some of them can be > safely passed and automagically translates to a new feature in gitk. > However, use of some options (e.g. --reverse) breaks the assumption the tool > makes on the output from the underlying plumbing and should not be accepted > from the end-user. > > It would be a good addition to our toolset if scripts like gitk can declare > which options and features are safe to accept from the end user to pass down > to the plumbing tools. "git rev-parse", which lets the script sift between > options that are meant to affect ancestry traversal and the ones that are for > other (primarily diff family) commands, does not do anything fancy like that, > but it would be a logical place to do this sort of thing. > > And it is not limited to "scripts" use. A recent topic on rejecting colouring > options from being given to format-patch would also be helped with such a > mechanism if it is available to builtins. > > Just an idle thought. Yes yes yes yes!!!!! I've been working on a response to your previous message, in which I address exactly this possibility. Coming soon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
