Jean-Noël Avila <avila.jn@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> The choices here may be awkward; no problem to propose even more descriptive >>> names. >>> >>>> Similarly "the 'format:<format-string>' format" feels highly >>>> redundant, I expect the reader knows that <string> contains a format >>>> inside it as it's mentioned immediately before *and* after. >>>> >>> The fact that it is a string doesn't tell you much about what you can do with >>> it. For me, this isn't a problem that the explanation is redundant. >> I agree that --format:<string> is quite poor, as type alone does not >> give readers any information on what it means and how it is supposed >> to look like. Calling it <format-string> does make quite a lot of >> sense. >> >> It is a bit less obvious how much value we get out of <bool-value>, >> though. In --opt=<arg> scheme of things, what comes after '=' are >> all <value>s, so <bool-value> does not clarify over <bool> like the >> way <format-string> clarifies over <string>. >> > Agreed. Should reroll the patch series? I guess another (hopefully the final) reroll would not hurt (but we are not in hurry---this may be among the topics that graduate early in the next cycle, but not during this cycle). Thanks.
