On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:37:16AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mehul Jain <mehul.jain2029@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The only reason why teaching the "--no-show-signature" option to > >> these commands is a good idea is because it would help people who > >> create an alias with "--show-sig" in early part of the command line, > >> e.g. > >> > >> [alias] fp = format-patch --show-signature > >> > >> by allowing them to countermand with --no-show-signature, i.e. > >> > >> $ git fp --no-show-signature ... > >> ... > > > > Just out of curiosity, I was thinking that we might be able to teach > > "--no-show-signature" option only to git-show, git-log, git-whatchanged > > and git-reflog. > > Yeah, I know it is possible with extra code, but I do not think of a > good reason why it is necessary. Not only "not necessary" but "actively worse" in my opinion. We have --show-signature in revision.c, and that is reason enough to have --no-show-signature, in case anybody would want to countermand an earlier request (whether from config that is soon to exist, or from a previous --show-signature on the command line), or just because somebody feels like making sure git is doing what they want without bothering to check the defaults. We add the "--no-" form by default for all of our bools parsed by parse-options. The only reason it is not already here is that this option parsing predates our use of parse-options, and nobody had bothered to go back and add it. But doing so is a win simply for consistency if nothing else, IMHO. I actually think it would be nice to convert all of handle_revision_opt to parse-options, but that's a non-trivial task. And I certainly wouldn't want it to hold up this otherwise simple topic. -Peff -- 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