Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] branch: allow -f with -m and -d

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:57:43 +0100

Junio C Hamano schrieb am 04.12.2014 um 20:13:
> Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> -f/--force is the standard way to force an action, and is used by branch
>> for the recreation of existing branches, but not for deleting unmerged
>> branches nor for renaming to an existing branch.
>>
>> Make "-m -f" equivalent to "-M" and "-d -f" equivalent to" -D", i.e.
>> allow -f/--force to be used with -m/-d also.
> 
> I like that goal.  And I agree with your s/force_create/force/g
> remark on the cover, too.
> 
> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  builtin/branch.c  | 9 +++++++--
>>  t/t3200-branch.sh | 5 +++++
>>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
>> index 3b79c50..8ea04d7 100644
>> --- a/builtin/branch.c
>> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
>> @@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  		OPT_BOOL('l', "create-reflog", &reflog, N_("create the branch's reflog")),
>>  		OPT_BOOL(0, "edit-description", &edit_description,
>>  			 N_("edit the description for the branch")),
>> -		OPT__FORCE(&force_create, N_("force creation (when already exists)")),
>> +		OPT__FORCE(&force_create, N_("force creation, move/rename, deletion")),
>>  		{
>>  			OPTION_CALLBACK, 0, "no-merged", &merge_filter_ref,
>>  			N_("commit"), N_("print only not merged branches"),
>> @@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  	if (with_commit || merge_filter != NO_FILTER)
>>  		list = 1;
>>  
>> -	if (!!delete + !!rename + !!force_create + !!new_upstream +
>> +	if (!!delete + !!rename + !!new_upstream +
> 
> This puzzled me but earlier -f implied creation and no other mode
> (hence it was an error to give it together with delete and other
> modes), but now -f is merely a "do forcibly whatever mode of
> operation other option determines" that does not conflict.
> 
> What should "-f -u" and "-f -l" do, then, though?
> 
>>  	    list + unset_upstream > 1)
>>  		usage_with_options(builtin_branch_usage, options);
>>  

I would say there is nothing to force, so we ignore -f there.
Alternatively, we could warn about that. While I do consider forcing
something that doesn't need force a mistake in other contexts, I would
not apply that thinking to the -f option.

Michael