Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] completion: recognize more long-options

From: Cornelius Weig <cornelius.weig@tngtech.com>
To: "SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Cc: j6t@kdbg.org, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] completion: recognize more long-options
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:40:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <415570bf-7201-3b68-4c91-668741d50160@tngtech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM0VKjkAnsT_LE4OZRkLPuiEZW88P7_OBbOw0XovHhLYfBhbwg@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/02/2017 03:00 AM, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that the ones not mentioned in the synopsis
> section are not worth completing.

Absolutely. What I meant is that at least the options from the synopsis
should be contained in the set of completable options.

>> 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
> 
> I don't mind such a change, but I don't think that list was ever meant
> to be comprehensive or decisive.  It is definitely not the former, as
> it's missing several things that the completion script does support.
> OTOH, it talks about .git/remotes, which has been considered legacy
> for quite some years (though it's right, because the completion script
> still supports it).

Then let's not do that change, because for some commands destructive
long-options have been in the list of completed options for quite a
while. Given that, the above change of the documentation, might stir up
more confusion than it settles.