Am 28.02.2012 22:15, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
René Scharfe<rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Now that options whose definition starts with "no-" can be negated
by removing said "no-", there is no need anymore to allow them to
be negated by adding a second "no-", which just looks silly.
Thanks. But accepting them silently and do what the user would have
expected, especially if we do not advertise it, would not hurt anybody,
no?
Yes, that's why I didn't include this fourth patch from the beginning.
However, I understood your comment "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
mean that nobody uses the double-no form of the existing negative
options anyway, and therefore we should disallow it.
Please drop this extra patch if I misunderstood you, in order to keep
backward compatibility.
René
--
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