Re: [PATCH 3/5] interpret-trailers: add an option to show only existing trailers
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:27:19 -0700
- From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] interpret-trailers: add an option to show only existing trailers
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:18:19AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > It can be useful to invoke interpret-trailers for the
>> > primary purpose of parsing existing trailers. But in that
>> > case, we don't want to apply existing ifMissing or ifExists
>> > rules from the config. Let's add a special mode where we
>> > avoid applying those rules. Coupled with --only-trailers,
>> > this gives us a reasonable parsing tool.
>> I have the impression that the name is slightly misleading
>> because 'only' just reduces the set. it does not enhance it.
>> (Do we have a configuration that says "remove this trailer
> No, I think you can only add trailers via ifExists or ifMissing.
> I actually called this --no-config originally, because to me it meant
> "do not apply config". But the processing applies also to --trailer
> arguments no the command line, which is how I ended up with
>> So maybe this is rather worded as 'exact-trailers' ?
> I'm not fond of that, as it's vague about which exact trailers we're
> talking about. I also thought of something like --verbatim, but I'd
> worry that would seem to conflict with --normalize.
> I dunno. All of the names seem not quite descriptive enough to me.
I meant 'exact' as in 'exactly from the patch/commit, no external
influence such as config', so maybe '--from-patch' or '--from-commit'
(which says the same as --no-config just the other way round.
Having --no- in config options as the standard is a UX disaster
IMHO as then we have to forbid the --no-no-X or reintroduce X
and flip the default)
Maybe --genuine ?