linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] commit: Add -f, --fixes <commit> option to add Fixes: line

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874n83m8xv.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
Date:	Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:09:32 +0100
From:	Thomas Rast <tr@...masrast.ch>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	Michael Haggerty <mhagger@...m.mit.edu>, git@...r.kernel.org,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	ksummit-attendees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] commit: Add -f, --fixes <commit> option to add Fixes: line

Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> writes:

> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 06:42:44AM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> But I don't think that this feature should be given the "-f" short
>> option, as (a) -f often means "force"; (b) it will increase the
>> confusion with --fixup; (c) it just doesn't strike me as being likely to
>> be such a frequently-used option (though if this changes over time the
>> "-f" option could always be granted to it later).
>
> (a) -n often means --dry-run, but for commit it means --no-verify.
> Different commands have different options, and commit doesn't have a
> --force to abbreviate as -f.
>
> (b) If anything, I think the existence of a short option will make the
> distinction more obvious, since -f and --fixup are much less similar
> than --fixes and --fixup.  Most users will never type --fixes, making
> confusion unlikely.
>
> (c) Short option letters tend to be first-come first-serve unless
> there's a strong reason to do otherwise.  Why reserve 'f' for some
> hypothetical future option that doesn't exist yet?

No, lately the direction in Git has been to avoid giving options a
one-letter shorthand until they have proven so useful that people using
it in the wild start to suggest that it should have one.

See e.g.

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233998
  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/168748

A much better argument would be if it was already clear from the specs
laid out for Fixes that n% of the kernel commits will end up having this
footer, and thus kernel hackers will spend x amount of time spelling out
--fixes and/or confusing it with --fixup to much headache.

-- 
Thomas Rast
tr@...masrast.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/