Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] completion: recognize more long-options

Hi Gabor,

 thanks for taking a look at these commits.

On 01/31/2017 11:17 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:17 PM,  [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Cornelius Weig <redacted>

Recognize several new long-options for bash completion in the following
commands:

Adding more long options that git commands learn along the way is
always an improvement.  However, seeing "_several_ new long options"
(or "some long options" in one of the other patches in the series)
makes the reader wonder: are these the only new long options missing
or are there more?  If there are more, why only these are added?  If
there aren't any more missing long options left, then please say so,
e.g. "Add all missing long options, except the potentially
desctructive ones, for the following commands: ...."

Personally, I agree with you that

Adding more long options that git commands learn along the way is
always an improvement.

However, people may start complaining that their terminal becomes too
cluttered when doing a double-Tab. In my cover letter, I go to length
about this. My assumption was that all options that are mentioned in the
introduction of the command man-page should be important enough to have
them in the completion list. I'll change my commit message accordingly.

quoted

 - rm: --force

'--force' is a potentially destructive option, too.

Thanks for spotting this.

Btw, I haven't found that non-destructive options should not be eligible
for completion. To avoid confusion about this in the future, I suggest
to also change the documentation:

index 933bb6e..96f1c7f 100644

--- a/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash
+++ b/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 #    *) git email aliases for git-send-email
 #    *) tree paths within 'ref:path/to/file' expressions
 #    *) file paths within current working directory and index
-#    *) common --long-options
+#    *) common non-destructive --long-options
 #
 # To use these routines:
 #

I take it you have also looked at the code itself? Then I would gladly
mention you as reviewer in my sign-off.