On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:56:41PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > > > I actually consider "--no-optional-locks" to be such an aspirational > > feature. I didn't go digging for other cases (though I'm fairly certain > > that "diff" has one), but hoped to leave it for further bug reports ("I > > used the option, ran command X, and saw lock contention"). > > OK, then we are essentially on the same page. I just was hoping > that we can restrain ourselves from adding these "non essential" > knobs at too fine granularity, ending up forcing end users to use > all of them.
Yes, I agree we should try not to have too many knobs. That's actually one of the reasons I avoided a status-only option in the first place. In retrospect, I agree that the current option probably doesn't get the granularity quite right. The idea of "totally read-only" just didn't cross my mind at all when working on the earlier feature. -Peff
