On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Matthieu Moy wrote: >> Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Remove the undocumented and unused '--verify' flag from interactive >> > rebase. >> >> I don't think this change is good. If a command has a --no-whatever >> flag, one expects the --whatever flag to exist too, even if it's a >> no-op. > [...] >> I think a better change would be to add a comment like >> >> --verify) >> Â Â Â # no-op, exists because --no-verify exists too. > > Shouldn't that be > > ÂOK_TO_SKIP_PRE_REBASE= > > instead, so that it undoes the effect of an earlier --no-verify? > Yes. But because it did not work like that, it was not documented and it was only accepted by interactive rebase, I thought it was best to just remove it. However, I do understand Matthieu's point about having a '--whatever' option for every '--no-whatever' option. So, if that is the general opinion, I wouldn't mind adding the flag to non-interactive rebase as well. As long as it is consistent, it would simplify things for the user (and, which is more important to me right now :-), for me while refactoring this code.) /Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html