Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Should this perhaps say "currently" or "this may change in the future", > so that people (including those who might want to fix it later) know > that it's a limitation and not intentional? Good point. > I'd also probably say it a little shorter, like: > > The negated form `--no-create-reflog` only overrides an earlier > `--create-reflog`, but currently does not negate the setting of > `core.logallrefupdates`. > > I guess that really isn't much shorter (I wondered if you could cut out > the "overrides --create-reflog" part, since that is the normal and > expected behavior, but I had trouble wording it to do so). I had the same trouble wording. Another thing I noticed was that I deliberately left it vague what "default" this does not override, because it appears to me that those who do not set logallrefupdates will get the compiled-in default and that is also not overriden. IOW, "does not negate the setting of core.logallrefupdates" will open us to reports "I do not have the configuration set, but I still get reflog even when --no-create-reflog is given". The negated form `--no-create-reflog` currently does not negate the default; it overrides an earlier `--create-reflog`, though. perhaps?