On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Right, I was just thinking in the weird cause were we *do* have a "no-option" that does want the "no-no-option" to negate it. Maybe this isn't ever a thing and we don't need to worry at all..? Thanks, Jake