Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean: improve -n and -f implementation and documentation

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 10:07:20 -0800

Jean-Noël Avila <[email-masked]> writes:

>> +	/* Dry run won't remove anything, so requiring force makes no sense */
>> +	if(dry_run)
>> +		require_force = 0;

Style.  "if (dry_run)".

Getting rid of "config_set", which was an extra variable that kept
track of where "force" came from, does make the logic cleaner, I
guess.  What we want to happen is that one of -i/-n/-f is required
when clean.requireForce is *not* unset (i.e. 0 <= require_force).

>> +	if (!force && !interactive) {

The require-force takes effect only when neither force or
interactive is given, so the new code structure puts the above
obvious conditional around "do we complain due to requireForce?"
logic.  Sensible.

>> +		if (require_force > 0)
>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce set to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>> +				  "refusing to clean"));

If it is explicitly set, we get this message.  And ...

>> +		else if (require_force < 0)
>> +			die(_("clean.requireForce defaults to true and neither -f, nor -i given; "
>>  				  "refusing to clean"));

... if it is set due to default (in other words, if it is not unset), we
get this message.

As you said, I do not think it matters too much either way to the
end-users where the truth setting of clean.requireForce came from,
either due to the default or the user explicitly configuring.  So
unifying to a single message may be helpful to both readers and
translators.

	clean.requireForce is true; unless interactive, -f is required

might be a bit shorter and more to the point.

> The last two cases can be coalesced into a single case (the last one),
> because the difference in the messages does not bring more information
> to the user.

Yeah.

Thanks.