Re: [PATCH] revision: allow pseudo options after --end-of-options

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:13:40PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:57:46PM +0800, Jiang Xin wrote:

quoted

quoted

Though in my experience it is usually a static "--not --all" or "--not
--branches --tags" or similar in such a function. I don't think I've
ever seen a case quite like the code above in practice.

Last week, I made a study on how gitlab wrap and execute a git
command. I saw the following code [1]:

    if c.supportsEndOfOptions() {
        commandArgs = append(commandArgs, "--end-of-options")
    }
    if len(postSepArgs) > 0 {
        commandArgs = append(commandArgs, "--")
    }

I was surprised to see the options "--end-of-options" and "--" used
next to each other, and the DashDash option ("--") is not mandatory.

I think using --end-of-options there is pointless. The "--" will always
signal the end of options (_and_ revisions). So if there is nothing
between the two, then the former cannot be doing anything.

Indeed it is. I somehow missed your Cc (not used to receiving Git ML
mails on my work address), but by chance I fixed this last week because
I realized this was broken. We've now moved the `--end-of-options` flag
between positional arguments and flags like it should've been from the
beginning [1].

[snip]

quoted

But if I move the "--end-of-options" before the revisions like this:

    git log --stat --pretty="%m %s" --no-decorate \
        --end-of-options \
       topic1 --not main release \
        -- \
        src/hello.c doc

The generated command failed to execute with error: unknown revision "--not".

It's reasonable for gitlab to construct git commands using mainly three fields:
1. Flags: for options like "--option", or "--key value".
2. Args: for args like revisions.
3. PostSepArgs: for pathspecs.

And if the command supports these options, it's better to add
"--end-of-options" between 1 and 2, and add "--" between 2 and 3.

Yeah, so the problem there is that the definition of "Args" is kind of
fuzzy. Sometimes it is useful to include stuff like "--not", and
sometimes it is dangerous or unexpected. Later you say:

Yeah, this is something that has been bothering me, too. It would be
nice to give special treatment to pseudo-revisions in git. That's why we
have now marked git-rev-list(1) to not support `--end-of-options` in
Gitaly, because we do pass pseudo-revisions to it in multiple places.

Patrick

[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitaly/-/merge_requests/3676