René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The patch does not forbid adding "no-" to an option that already starts > with "no-". This stricter rule would be easy to add, but since that is > currently the only way to negate such options, it would break backwards > compatibility and thus should be added in a separate patch, if at all. > > With the patch, the following guidelines are followed: > > - "no-" means no, for both developers and users. > - The user doesn't have to to say "no-no-". > > The results feels simpler to me. Sounds fair. I agree that the backward compatibility of --no-no-foo is a potential problem, if any of the actions controlled by "--no-foo" option defaults to the behaviour when "--no-foo" is given. Among the existing 13 that you listed, I do not think there is any that tempts any existing user to ask for negation with "--no-no-foo" form, so I think we should be Ok. -- 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