Re: [PATCH v3] builtin/revert.c: refactor using an enum for cmd-action

Michael Lohmann [off-list ref] writes:

This is done to avoid having to keep the char values in sync in
different places and also to get compiler warnings on non-exhaustive
switches.

In the rebase `action` enum there is the enumeration constant
`ACTION_NONE` which is not particularly descriptive, since it seems to
imply that no action should be taken. Instead it signals a start of a
revert/cherry-pick process, so here `ACTION_START` was chosen.

Co-authored-by: Wanja Henze [off-list ref]
Signed-off-by: Michael Lohmann <redacted>
---

On 11. Jan 2024, at 20:37, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Phillip Wood [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I think ACTION_NONE was intended to covey that the user did not pass
one of the OPT_CMDMODE() options like "--continue" as there isn't a
"--start" option. I don't have a strong opinion between "_NONE" and
"_START".

I agree with you why NONE is called as such.  If "revert" does not
take "--start" (I do not remember offhand), I would think it would
be better to follow suit.

My point was that yes, it might be in sync with what the user passes in
as arguments, but when I followed the code and saw lots of references to
ACTION_NONE I was puzzled, since my intuition of that name was that
_no action_ should be taken (which did not make sense to me).

I know you wrote that ;-).  But _NONE is "no action was specified",
and has been so for a long time in the context of "rebase". I do not
see any confusion expressed there.  I do not expect to see any
confusion here, either, if we were to introduce these new enum.