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

René Scharfe [off-list ref] writes:

Am 02.08.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Junio C Hamano:

quoted

Subject: [PATCH] push: use PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP instead of unbalanced brackets
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:31:33 +0200
...
official escape hatch instead.

Helped-by: René Scharfe [off-list ref]

I didn't do anything for this particular patch so far?  But...

quoted

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>

Yeah, I realized it after I sent it out.  The line has been replaced
with a forged sign-off from Ævar.

quoted

---
  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.

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

René Scharfe [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Am 02.08.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Junio C Hamano:

quoted

Subject: [PATCH] push: use PARSE_OPT_LITERAL_ARGHELP instead of unbalanced brackets
From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <redacted>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:31:33 +0200
...
official escape hatch instead.

Helped-by: René Scharfe [off-list ref]

I didn't do anything for this particular patch so far?  But...

quoted

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>

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).

quoted

quoted

---
  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.