On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:27:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > @@ -81,7 +82,7 @@ static struct option builtin_config_options[] = {
> > OPT_GROUP(N_("Other")),
> > OPT_BOOL('z', "null", &end_null, N_("terminate values with NUL byte")),
> > OPT_BOOL(0, "name-only", &omit_values, N_("show variable names only")),
> > - OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &respect_includes, N_("respect include directives on lookup")),
> > + OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &respect_includes_opt, N_("respect include directives on lookup")),
>
> It would be more in line with what the log message advertised if you
> did
>
> static struct config_options config_options = {
> -1, /* .respect_includes: unspecified */
> };
>
> OPT_BOOL(0, "includes", &config_options.respect_includes, N_("...")),
>
> no?
I think I like the split between the option-value here and the "final"
value that goes into config_options.respect_includes. Because we
actually munge it later based on the given-config value anyway.
So I agree this makes the diff larger than it might need to be, but I
think the end result is a bit nicer.
-Peff