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, <cornelius.w...@tngtech.com> wrote: >> From: Cornelius Weig <cornelius.w...@tngtech.com> >> >> 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. >> - 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.
