Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH] push: comment on a funny unbalanced option help

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 22:33:49 +0200

On Thu, Aug 02 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> René Scharfe <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Am 02.08.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>> Subject: [PATCH] push: use PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP instead of unbalanced brackets
>>> From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
>>> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:31:33 +0200
>>> ...
>>> official escape hatch instead.
>>>
>>> Helped-by: René Scharfe <[email-masked]>
>>
>> I didn't do anything for this particular patch so far?  But...
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
>
> Yeah, I realized it after I sent it out.  The line has been replaced
> with a forged sign-off from Ævar.

Thanks, FWIW that's fine by me, and also if you want to drop this "fake"
patch of mine and replace it with something René came up with (I have
not yet read his 1-6 patches submitted on this topic, so maybe they're
not mutually exclusive).

>>> ---
>>>   builtin/push.c | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c
>>> index 1c28427d82..ef4032a9ef 100644
>>> --- a/builtin/push.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/push.c
>>> @@ -542,9 +542,9 @@ int cmd_push(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>>   		OPT_BIT( 0,  "porcelain", &flags, N_("machine-readable output"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_PORCELAIN),
>>>   		OPT_BIT('f', "force", &flags, N_("force updates"), TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE),
>>>   		{ OPTION_CALLBACK,
>>> -		  0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("refname>:<expect"),
>>> +		  0, CAS_OPT_NAME, &cas, N_("<refname>:<expect>"),
>>
>> ... shouldn't we use this opportunity to document that "expect" is
>> optional?
>
> I consider that it is a separate topic.
>
> I thought that we achieved a consensus that making the code guess
> missing ":<expect>" is a misfeature that should be deprecated (in
> which case we would not want to "s|:<expect>|[&]|"), but I may be
> misremembering it.