From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DC9C001B0 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 21:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231572AbjHHV2z (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:28:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47722 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229802AbjHHV2z (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:28:55 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9494F91 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 14:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12999 invoked by uid 109); 8 Aug 2023 21:28:53 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 21:28:53 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 24534 invoked by uid 111); 8 Aug 2023 21:28:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 17:28:53 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:28:52 -0400 From: Jeff King To: =?utf-8?B?UmVuw6k=?= Scharfe Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH] describe: fix --no-exact-match Message-ID: <20230808212852.GA760815@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <4eea7e15-6594-93e2-27b5-3d6e3c0baac6@web.de> <20230808212720.GA760752@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230808212720.GA760752@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 05:27:21PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > So before I sent a patch (either to switch to using opt->value, or to > add an UNUSED annotation), I wanted to see what you (or others) thought > between the two. I.e., should we have a rule of "try not to operate on > global data via option callbacks" or is that just being too pedantic for > one-off callbacks like this? Oh, and btw, the same situation exists for the "pack-objects --no-quiet" earlier in this thread (which is why I was trying to establish the general approach). -Peff