On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:48 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:07 PM Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:53:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >
> >> This one is good:
> >> > + if (unset || !strcmp(arg, "abort"))
> >> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_ABORT;
> >>
> >> But here: does it make sense to use REENCODE_YES/NO to be more consistant ?
> >> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "yes"))
> >> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_PLEASE;
> >> > + else if (!strcmp(arg, "no"))
> >> > + reencode_mode = REENCODE_NEVER;
> >
> > Didn't realize there was any such convention, and even have difficulty
> > finding it with grep (CONTAINS_{YES,NO} appears to be the only example
> > I can find), but the alternate wording seems fine; I'm happy to adopt
> > it.
>
> I am OK with Yes/No.
>
> Don't we want to treat this as "bool or literal 'abort'", though?
> Other options that are "bool or something else" tend to accept
> "true" as a synonym for "yes", and I am wondering if we want to
> follow suit here, too.
Makes sense; will do.
