On 04/22/2015 02:06 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> writes:
> It's easy to be blinded into thinking that cat-file's new option
> should be named --literally since it was inspired by the --literally
> option of hash-object, but indeed it may not be the best choice.
Yeah, I wouldn't even say "inspired". It was envisioned as a
counter-part debugging aid, nothing more.
Is there any other way to make cat-file looser other than accepting
an unknown type name from the future? If so, then perhaps it may
make sense to give it a generic name that implys that we would
trigger such additional looseness in the future. But as the
inventor of it as a debugging aid, I would say a name that spells
out the specific way this option is being loose, e.g.
> --allow-bogus-type
or with s/bogus/unknown/, best describes what it currently does.
Yes this gives the best description, but its large, while we could use something
like --no-strict instead. Is the size worth the trade-off for a better
description?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
