On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > This is why it's an RFC. I don't really feel that it's too much of a > problem. As for the reason why I thought it might want a flag itself > is because of concerns raised earlier that we might have something > liek > > OPT_BOOL( ... "no-stage" ...) > OPT_INT(... "stage" ....) > > or something already which might be broken and the only proper way to > disable no-stage is no-no-stage? > > Is this actually a concern? I thought this was a comment raised by you > earlier as an objection to a change unless we specifically flagged > them as OPT_NEGBOOL() I think the breakage in that case would be caused by "--no-stage" taking over "--stage" as well. And your patch doesn't change that; it happened already in 2012. Your patch only affects the --no-no- form, which I think we would never want. I don't think it needs callers to trigger it explicitly. -Peff