Subject: Re: git status always modifies index?

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:31 -0500

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:56:41PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > I actually consider "--no-optional-locks" to be such an aspirational
> > feature. I didn't go digging for other cases (though I'm fairly certain
> > that "diff" has one), but hoped to leave it for further bug reports ("I
> > used the option, ran command X, and saw lock contention").
> 
> OK, then we are essentially on the same page.  I just was hoping
> that we can restrain ourselves from adding these "non essential"
> knobs at too fine granularity, ending up forcing end users to use
> all of them.

Yes, I agree we should try not to have too many knobs. That's actually
one of the reasons I avoided a status-only option in the first place.

In retrospect, I agree that the current option probably doesn't get the
granularity quite right. The idea of "totally read-only" just didn't
cross my mind at all when working on the earlier feature.

-Peff