Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> +--keep-cherry-pick:: >> +--no-keep-cherry-pick:: > > I noticed that this _could_ have been simplified to > > --[no-]keep-cherry-pick:: > > but I also see several uses of either in our documentation. Do we > have a preference? By inspecting the lines before a "no-" string, > I see that some have these two lines, some use the [no-] pattern, > and others highlight the --no-<option> flag completely separately. "git log -S'--[no-]' Documentation/" (and its "-S'--no-'" variant) tell us that many of our recent commits do prefer the single-line form, but then in d333f672 (git-checkout.txt: spell out --no-option, 2019-03-29), we see we turned a handful of "--[no-]option" into "--option" followed by "--no-option" deliberately [*1*]. So, we do not seem to have a strong concensus. I think all the new ones that spell --no-option:: out are the ones when --option:: and --no-option:: have their own paragraph, e.g. "--sign/--no-sign" of "git-tag". As the differences do not matter all that much, I do not mind declaring (and one of the tasks of the maintainer is to make a declaration on such a choice that it matters more for us to pick either one and we all sticking to it, rather than which choice we make) that we'd prefer the expanded two-liner form (which when formatted would become a single line with two things on it) and mark the task to convert from '--[no-]option' as #leftoverbit. Thanks for your attention to the details. [Footnote] *1* The justification given was that it makes is it is easier to search that way and it is less cryptic. Personally I do not think it matters that much. Even when trying to learn what the negated form does, nobody would look for "--no-keep-ch" to find the above paragraph. "keep-cherry-pick" would be what they would look for, with or without leading double-dashes.
